I did fine with everything in the book up until chapter 7! The professor just wasn't making since when explaining the rules. I understood how the rules worked, but had trouble keeping them in my head. This video is AWESOME
You are honestly just as great a teacher as my prof. Whenever I miss my classes, I will watch your lectures to catch up. I have used them all night to help study for an exam and I have 100% confidence that I will get an A~!
In the problem at 31:11, you made a critical error; there is no L on the first line. Then, on line 3, you perform the whole problem assuming a letter exists where it doesn't. Can you explain the correct proof?
Your vids are AWESOME, Learning so much! However, how would I go to prove this one? It doesn't seem to be quite like the others. I get it when you show me the steps often before you actually say all of them. But this one doesn't seem to follow the rules you gave us. The contradiction is confusing me how it can even be valid. Can you give me a hint? 1. ~p => q 2. ~p => ~q 3. ____________ p Can you go over it with an explanation, I've tried like the above problems and can't figure out how to do this one. I don't see which two to use out of the 10 you've shown. Anybody? :(
Does anyone know if the rule of association can be used if there's both a conjunct and disjunct in one premise? This is what I'm looking at: 9. ~J • (K v M) 10. (~J • K) v M Can I do this move??? If I can then I can work my way to the conclusion, but if not then I'm back at square one. HALP.
Is there another rule similar to the Constructive Dilemna, but using Modus Tollens? Like this: (P THEN Q) AND (R THEN S) NON Q OR NON S THEREFORE NON P OR NON R Is there a name for it?
Thorsby is the life safer for lazy students who fell in sleep in class, but still deserves a pass in logic test! Thank you so much!!!!
I did fine with everything in the book up until chapter 7! The professor just wasn't making since when explaining the rules. I understood how the rules worked, but had trouble keeping them in my head. This video is AWESOME
You are honestly just as great a teacher as my prof. Whenever I miss my classes, I will watch your lectures to catch up. I have used them all night to help study for an exam and I have 100% confidence that I will get an A~!
~A lmao
@33:25, is it j instead of L? line 1 only has a j
Thank you, Mark, for putting in the time and effort for these videos! It really helps me supplement my in-class lectures
my prof is awful at explaining things to the point where showing up to lecture just confuses me even more!! these videos really help, thank you!
27:00 Thank you so much for this. Very informative!
shouldn't it be G&(HvJ) not G&(HvL)?
I understand your lectures so much more better than reading from the book
In the problem at 31:11, you made a critical error; there is no L on the first line. Then, on line 3, you perform the whole problem assuming a letter exists where it doesn't. Can you explain the correct proof?
It was definitely a big mistake, but it didn't really matter in the end since he simplified that line.
in the sum 30:55 min .. is commutation important? I think we can skip that step and directly go to the answer that is through disjunctive syllogism
Very good work
thank you!! I now have slightly more confidence in doing my exam!
So helpful! Thanks so much for making these videos
thank you very much! 💯👍 i think i could pass the midterm exam about this on wednesday!
You are currently saving my life, so thank you. lol
Your a really great teacher!
Your vids are AWESOME, Learning so much! However, how would I go to prove this one? It doesn't seem to be quite like the others. I get it when you show me the steps often before you actually say all of them. But this one doesn't seem to follow the rules you gave us. The contradiction is confusing me how it can even be valid. Can you give me a hint?
1. ~p => q
2. ~p => ~q
3.
____________
p
Can you go over it with an explanation, I've tried like the above problems and can't figure out how to do this one. I don't see which two to use out of the 10 you've shown. Anybody? :(
Does anyone know if the rule of association can be used if there's both a conjunct and disjunct in one premise? This is what I'm looking at:
9. ~J • (K v M)
10. (~J • K) v M
Can I do this move??? If I can then I can work my way to the conclusion, but if not then I'm back at square one. HALP.
The move isn't valid. Association only applies to premises with only all conjuncts or only all disjuncts.
ahh, thank you!
Is there another rule similar to the Constructive Dilemna, but using Modus Tollens?
Like this:
(P THEN Q) AND (R THEN S)
NON Q OR NON S
THEREFORE NON P OR NON R
Is there a name for it?
+Nidomy
That looks like "Destructive Dilemma"
Ho, that's the name. Thanks.
Like