Prof. Bazett I'm currently taking a Discrete Maths graduate course, after listening to my lectures in class I literally run to your videos which give me a fundamental natural understanding of these seemingly complex concepts. You are one of a kind. Thanks for these amazing videos and explicit explanations. You are making a huge difference out there. Keep sharing your knowledge
Thanks for the great video. I was struggling to understand why we would negate p(x) and your example on the class cleared it right up. I also was wondering why we switched between existential and universal qualifiers but you helped with that too. I also just notice that there is a summary in the description that I can read to make sure I understood what was going on. That is super helpful.
I seriously can't thank you enough, I tried looking through my prof's slides and you cleared this up for me in 30 mins(also watched your other video). thank you ;-;
I appreciate for this great video. I have few questions: If you negate on existential, does it mean that there does not existing any members of that set? How do you symbolize "non of phoenix is mammal." If we use existential quantifiers, does it mean that something must exist outside of the mind?
Thanks for your effort, doctor. I just have a question about the last part. You said that isn't taller, but you used the word "shorter". I think we must use isn't taller instead of shorter because shorter means " less than 7", and isn't taller means "less or equal to 7". I'm a little confused about this. Could anyone help me out?
You make the statement "Everyone in our class is shorter than 7 feet" as the negation of "Someone in our class is taller than 7 feet." I would offer that this sentence more accurately reflects the negation: "Everyone in our class is 7 feet tall, or less." (or some other grammatically equivalent statement.) It is a subtle point, but the example in the video does not account for the case where someone in the class is exactly 7 feet.
Hi! Thank you for your videos! According to your video will then a(x)(-s(x)->b(x,f) For every x if x is not a student, x buys a ferrari. I.e. students don't buy Ferraris Is it right?
Trefor Bazett I m trying to solve the formula, put it in normal English. The logical equasion is the following: A(x) (~S(x)->B(x,f)). Which as far as I know reads for every x if x is not a student then x buys ferrari. So I wasn't sure of in proper English it is students don't buy ferrari or everyone except students buy ferrari
The only difference is that Z+ includes 0 whereas N does not. However he probably just uses Z+ for the simplicity of it. Makes it easier to follow when he's not using all the different symbols for number ranges
Oh my gosh, you make these topics ridiculously simple! You're an excellent teacher!
Thank you so much!
Prof. Bazett I'm currently taking a Discrete Maths graduate course, after listening to my lectures in class I literally run to your videos which give me a fundamental natural understanding of these seemingly complex concepts. You are one of a kind. Thanks for these amazing videos and explicit explanations. You are making a huge difference out there. Keep sharing your knowledge
finally someone who gets to the heart of the matter definitely subscribing
What a God gifted teacher 😢 I have been struggling to understand this concept but finally I got you dear lovely brother 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I am not exaggerating when I say that this is by far, the clearest explanation I have seen for this matter.
Your explanation is clear-cut and smooth I love it! Never stop doing what u doing man and thank u for helping out with this, Bazett!
Dude has PHD lol
Coming from a mechanical engineer undergrad degree to a CS graduate course, you are saving my life. Thank you so much!
Glad I'm helping!
I'm from Philippines and I love how you make Mathematics simple .🥰
If he's writing backwards then it is the case that this is very impressive
Negated his writing lol
@@quisut7167 Yeah, in a previous video, he confirmed that he flips it in post. Some people do it though, and it'd be pretty cool, wouldn't it? XD
REALLY like his enthusiasm and teaching clarity, makes me want to watch ALL his videos!
This guy is so skilled in math and writing mirrored. Salute.
Not only are you an amazing teacher, you use the same notation I use in my classes. Thank you!
So glad I could help!
This is as clear as it gets, thank you!!
These videos are so well made and make the material much easier to understand. I can't thank you enough!!!!
Thanks for the great video. I was struggling to understand why we would negate p(x) and your example on the class cleared it right up. I also was wondering why we switched between existential and universal qualifiers but you helped with that too. I also just notice that there is a summary in the description that I can read to make sure I understood what was going on. That is super helpful.
Watching after 7 years, super useful, thank you
I love the way you explain things. very sound, to the point and clear. Good luck!
My prof discussed this topic earlier but I didn't understand anything. Thank you for this video, I can now solve our activity properly
Glad to hear it helped!
Thank you, sir. I can answer my assignment now. Very helpful.
cristal clear !!! very practically you have explained ....thanks a lot ...respect from india.
You're awesome! I'm glad I found your videos. You explain everything much better than my professor.
That's a beautiful, concise explanation. Thank you for the great work you are doing!
Thank you sir I am being tested on this soon and your videos help so much and are so easy to understand.
I seriously can't thank you enough, I tried looking through my prof's slides and you cleared this up for me in 30 mins(also watched your other video). thank you ;-;
I've been trying so hard to understand this, but Sir you saved my life thank you.🙏
Thank you so much. You helped me for my exam. 👌👍
You are Soo smart and cant help but Say Thanks again and again.
Awesome and thank you am for the simplicity ,,❤
Thank you, sir. I can understand the lessons very well after watching your videos.
7:26 shouldn't this be "not taller" because "shorter" doesn't include if it's equal to 7 feet?
Correct. I noticed that mistake too.
Thank you so much for these video lessons. your a life saver! God bless you!
Very clear nice teacher
Amazing! So clear! Thank you!!
Thanku so much sir...the way of teaching is awesome
very clear explanation!
thank you sir
You are the best. 👏
You are my hero
This is UA-cam Gold!
Thanks Sir, it was really helpful
Great point
this man just awsome🙌🙌🙌
Thank you
I appreciate for this great video. I have few questions:
If you negate on existential, does it mean that there does not existing any members of that set?
How do you symbolize "non of phoenix is mammal."
If we use existential quantifiers, does it mean that something must exist outside of the mind?
Love this explanation, now i understand it, too! Thank you. :) After a break, i continue now to watch the 45 Videos today. :D
Thanks Trefor.Very cool
Thank you so much Trefor.
Very succinct and clear
Very Helpful
Thank you very much
Well done, thank you
Thanks for your effort, doctor. I just have a question about the last part. You said that isn't taller, but you used the word "shorter". I think we must use isn't taller instead of shorter because shorter means " less than 7", and isn't taller means "less or equal to 7". I'm a little confused about this.
Could anyone help me out?
Yes! I agree with you and I think it was a misnomer on the part of the professor.
Thanks millions
amazing stuff
Thank you for nice explanation.
excellent thank you sir.
You sir are awesome
Very helpful. Thank you.
So helpful, thank you very much :)
Glad it was helpful!
6:54 shouldnt it be smaller than or equal to?
You make the statement "Everyone in our class is shorter than 7 feet" as the negation of "Someone in our class is taller than 7 feet." I would offer that this sentence more accurately reflects the negation: "Everyone in our class is 7 feet tall, or less." (or some other grammatically equivalent statement.)
It is a subtle point, but the example in the video does not account for the case where someone in the class is exactly 7 feet.
I was looking for this comment
Is it more accurate to say that not P(x) in this case is x
Correct, Everyone in the class is 7 feet or less.
7:02 shorter than 7 feet or same as 7 feet i think? correct me if im wrong
Shouldn’t ~P(x) be “all are shorter than or equal to 7 feet”?
tnx alot sr. 4m srilanka
thanks
Formally, shouldn't existential statements be followed by s.t. (such that), instead of the comma ( , )?
@@DrTrefor Ok, thank you.
Does this have anything to do with the burden of proof in the case of Theist vs Atheist debates?
More depth videos I want
Teacher why didn't we say less than 7 feet equal to the last question ??
Sir pls make video on graph theory
Hi! Thank you for your videos! According to your video will then a(x)(-s(x)->b(x,f)
For every x if x is not a student, x buys a ferrari. I.e. students don't buy Ferraris
Is it right?
Trefor Bazett I m trying to solve the formula, put it in normal English. The logical equasion is the following: A(x) (~S(x)->B(x,f)). Which as far as I know reads for every x if x is not a student then x buys ferrari.
So I wasn't sure of in proper English it is students don't buy ferrari or everyone except students buy ferrari
all x ( x+1=0 or x+2=0) how to write negation of this statement?
No one talking about 👉-------------he is so handsome 😭😭
in the very firs example : isn't also valid to write 'there exists x in z +,such that x > 3 " Well , in my opinion this is also true
"everyone is talller then 7 feet" is is correct?
I think it is( everyone in the class is shorter than or equal 7 feet), cuz before the negation that person was more that 7 feet tall not equal
Hi shouldn't it be Everyone in our class is shorter than equals to 7 feet? @6:45
Okay noted! Thank you!
Huh ? How’d I end up here?
I never understand why he uses the set of positive integers instead of the set of natural numbers
@@DrTrefor actually really interesting, thanks for the insight
The only difference is that Z+ includes 0 whereas N does not. However he probably just uses Z+ for the simplicity of it. Makes it easier to follow when he's not using all the different symbols for number ranges
Shouldn't it be : is 7 feet or shorter?
jack whitehall !
I wish I was 7 feet.
Determine the truth value of the following statements
(∀x∈R)(√(x^2 )=x).
(∃x∈R)(∃y∈R)(x^2+y^2=9).
(∃x∈R)(∀y∈R)(x+y=7)
please solve it
false , true , true?
Ed Bolian teaches maths.
Thank you
Your buttons are
Backward
Confuse asf
thanks