dude im paying $3,400 at DePaul Univ. for a discrete math class where the prof. cant explain s***. This has shed more light on the matter than 3 full 3hr courses under her. Thank you!
Trefor, the first step in th example where you simplify the LHS by DeMorgans law,..are you just distributing the not to the inside of the parentheses and flipping the symbol? i thought since the two ways of morgans law are if not p or q == not p and not q or the second if not p and q == not p or not q,.. since the LHS doesnt really fit in either example,..how is it that we can apply morgans law to the LHS?
I'm watching this series to compliment my self-study path of coding/computer science. All of them so far have been great, but I feel like this is where you're really getting into the good stuff. Applying those rules is definitely a cool concept
@@wintutorials2282hey man I know it’s been a while but could you send them to me? I am not going through traditional Uni route so I am trying to blind teach myself all of this
I agree with a lot of students. I’m taking an online class and the professor too has not done anything and the videos in the modules are boring and don’t explain in details the way you do. You help us build a foundation from the very basics to better understand at a higher level and that’s what being a professor is all about. Thank you so much for helping not only explain but making it fun and engaging enough to WANT to learn and keep watching your videos. Bravo, I wish you were my professor!
I have to give you a big thanks, my university lecturer struggles to explain equivalences, and watching 3 videos of yours has literally explained everything thanks Dr. Bazett
This channel is of great help . My lecturers love to complicated simple stuff and make them seem difficult to understand which sucks! Great video Trefor
I just dropped $4k on a Discreet Math class and I'm using this guy on RUclips to actually understand it. Wish I could pay this guy my tuition instead. So sick of being ripped off by a campus.
My professor did not even take the time to explain this nor break it down as you have. You would think if everyone in the class is missing on the same questions they would realize that they aren't explaining the content correctly. This is appreciated more than you understand. These professors are not explaining it like at all
I have a question, if you may. In 4:08 you applied DM law on a statement which contained a double negative. But doesn't DM's law apply to statements which assert, for example, "I am not P nor Q"? i.e. not both? And the statement you applied DM law stated something like: "I am not P, or I am Q" i.e. I am one but not the other. Since a double negative statement is equivalent to a statement that is not negated, how could DM law apply to a disjunction/conjunction with one negated sentence and a non-negated sentence? I am sorry if the question is not clear enough.
That's why when he applied DM law he didn't say (not p And not q) but he rather said (not p and not *not* q). I think if you think about it like this, it would click: let ~ q = g and rewrite the question as ~(q ∨ g) then apply DML to get ~q ∨ ~g Now replace g for its original value ~p ∨ ~(g) = ~p ∧ ~ (~ q) that's why he wrote not *not* q. In English imagine it like this: p = Tom is a crocodile q = Tom is not a fish ~ q = Tom is a fish so ~(p ∨ ~ q) translates to ~(Tom is a crocodile or a fish) = Tom is neither a crocodile nor a fish and ~p ∧ ~ (~ q) translates to Tom isn't a crocodile and isn't a fish. or In English imagine it like this: p = Tom is a crocodile q = Tom is a fish ~ q = Tom is not a fish so ~(p ∨ ~ q) translates to ~(Tom is a crocodile or He is not a fish) = Tom is either a fish or not a crocodile and ~p ∧ ~ (~ q) translates to Tom isn't a crocodile and He is a fish = He is a fish okay tbh my reasoning falls apart here and I think that's what you were asking in your question :)
good man, I started with different youtube course, next I move to book and I found that youtube course was after that book. your course is different because you are trying to simplifay things and explain it your way which is always better.
need help plss.. Note : * Determine whether each pair of statements is logically equivalent* 1. ~(~p --- q) and p --- ~q note --- is Implies 2. ~(p or q ) and ( ~p) V ( ~q) 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 thanks.
Hi. I don't know if it was too late but the two statements are not logically equivalent. I used truth tables to determine it. P. s. I am also a student so correct me if I'm wrong
Thank you. When you are given : 10. Which of the following set of expressions is not equivalent to each other? a) 𝑝 and (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∨ (𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞) b) 𝑝 → (𝑞 → 𝑟) and (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → 𝑟 c) (𝑝 → 𝑞) → 𝑟 and (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → 𝑟 d) All of the above are correct How you would solve the above in less than ONE MINUTE please? Using truth table will take a lot time, so I don't think it's recommended here.
Dr. Terfor good day! I just want to ask a question about this topic. I probably need your help. It can be verified that if p and q are statement then A. (Left side) ~ (p^q) = ~pv~q (right side) B. (Left side) ~(pvq) = ~p^~q (right side) Use this equivalence to rewrite the statement. YOU ARE NOT SINGLE AND NOT THE HEAD OF A HOUSEHOLD. So Dr. Terfor what could be the answer of this situation , I want your help. It could be? A1. (Left side) You are single and the head of a household. A1.(Right side) You are single or the head of a household. B1. (Right side) You are single or the head of a household. B2. (Left side) You are single and the head of a household. Am I right Sir? I hope for your response. Thank you so much in advance!
dude im paying $3,400 at DePaul Univ. for a discrete math class where the prof. cant explain s***. This has shed more light on the matter than 3 full 3hr courses under her. Thank you!
Trefor, the first step in th example where you simplify the LHS by DeMorgans law,..are you just distributing the not to the inside of the parentheses and flipping the symbol? i thought since the two ways of morgans law are if not p or q == not p and not q or the second if not p and q == not p or not q,.. since the LHS doesnt really fit in either example,..how is it that we can apply morgans law to the LHS?
@@goransomic3259 we consider p and not as the two statements and then apply them to the first theorem
That money is for the degree and not for the teaching services.
You are legend 😂🤣🤣
I'm watching this series to compliment my self-study path of coding/computer science. All of them so far have been great, but I feel like this is where you're really getting into the good stuff. Applying those rules is definitely a cool concept
I can give you some recources if you want, im in my first year now
@@wintutorials2282 yo can I have those? Where can I contact you
@@wintutorials2282hey man I know it’s been a while but could you send them to me? I am not going through traditional Uni route so I am trying to blind teach myself all of this
I agree with a lot of students. I’m taking an online class and the professor too has not done anything and the videos in the modules are boring and don’t explain in details the way you do. You help us build a foundation from the very basics to better understand at a higher level and that’s what being a professor is all about. Thank you so much for helping not only explain but making it fun and engaging enough to WANT to learn and keep watching your videos. Bravo, I wish you were my professor!
Thank you. I'm paying 6,000 at ASU for this class, and these videos are the only way I'm actually going to learn the content.
I'm at UMASS, and having a hard time also with discrete math.
Me too lmao
University is a scam
I go to ASU too lol and same
Universities are nothing but a glorified scam
I have to give you a big thanks, my university lecturer struggles to explain equivalences, and watching 3 videos of yours has literally explained everything thanks Dr. Bazett
Dr. Bazett, you literally explained this within 1 minute and 30 seconds. That is amazing.
in 10 mins i understood what my dr. explained in 4 lectures 1 hour each the past 2 weeks
This channel is of great help . My lecturers love to complicated simple stuff and make them seem difficult to understand which sucks! Great video Trefor
So glad it is helping!
I just dropped $4k on a Discreet Math class and I'm using this guy on RUclips to actually understand it. Wish I could pay this guy my tuition instead. So sick of being ripped off by a campus.
Thank you very much, it really help my study. I spent a lot of money for college and yet, i'm prefer this lecture than my professor.
This video series might be the way I am going to be passing my discrete structures class. Thank you so muchh for this!!!!!
You have an extra bracket in line 3. Great video.
You and TheTrevTutor might just be the best thing that ever happened to yt.
Can you help me with a problem? I’m a 16 year old dual enrollment student and I’m having trouble.
Thank you! This finally cleared things up for me
THANK YOU FOR SAVING MY LIFE
Thank you for the videos they are super helpful
May God bless you for this man…..👊🏾
My professor did not even take the time to explain this nor break it down as you have. You would think if everyone in the class is missing on the same questions they would realize that they aren't explaining the content correctly. This is appreciated more than you understand. These professors are not explaining it like at all
That sucks!
This makes way more sense now, thank you for this guide.
is there any place whr i can practice this
Your video quality is great, very well explained, thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks a lot for this video. It was very helpful
I have a question, if you may. In 4:08 you applied DM law on a statement which contained a double negative. But doesn't DM's law apply to statements which assert, for example, "I am not P nor Q"? i.e. not both? And the statement you applied DM law stated something like: "I am not P, or I am Q" i.e. I am one but not the other. Since a double negative statement is equivalent to a statement that is not negated, how could DM law apply to a disjunction/conjunction with one negated sentence and a non-negated sentence? I am sorry if the question is not clear enough.
That's why when he applied DM law he didn't say (not p And not q) but he rather said (not p and not *not* q).
I think if you think about it like this, it would click:
let ~ q = g
and rewrite the question as ~(q ∨ g) then apply DML to get ~q ∨ ~g
Now replace g for its original value
~p ∨ ~(g) = ~p ∧ ~ (~ q) that's why he wrote not *not* q.
In English imagine it like this:
p = Tom is a crocodile
q = Tom is not a fish
~ q = Tom is a fish
so ~(p ∨ ~ q) translates to ~(Tom is a crocodile or a fish) = Tom is neither a crocodile nor a fish
and ~p ∧ ~ (~ q) translates to Tom isn't a crocodile and isn't a fish.
or
In English imagine it like this:
p = Tom is a crocodile
q = Tom is a fish
~ q = Tom is not a fish
so ~(p ∨ ~ q) translates to ~(Tom is a crocodile or He is not a fish) = Tom is either a fish or not a crocodile
and ~p ∧ ~ (~ q) translates to Tom isn't a crocodile and He is a fish = He is a fish
okay tbh my reasoning falls apart here and I think that's what you were asking in your question :)
Finally, your words are making sense.
Fantastic explanation with a real-life example, well-done sir. Subbed.
good man, I started with different youtube course, next I move to book and I found that youtube course was after that book. your course is different because you are trying to simplifay things and explain it your way which is always better.
i didnt get the point why the or flip to the and on the minute 4:12 thank you for the help a lot i have an exam coming up
Express the biconditional statement p ↔q in a logically equivalent statement form containing only negations (~) and inclusive disjunctions (∨).
Dude. Thank you.
You are most welcome!!
Okay, I can just about understand this, thanks
Men i joined late but its amazing vedio teachers are killing us in school
thank you
how about those with 3 propositional variables? What do we give the third variable? 1100 in truth table?
Even in English, it makes sense. For example: It's neither P or Q is the same as saying it's not P and it's not Q.
The only way for me to understand this was using sets...using union as OR and intersection as AND
thanks trefor
This shit makes my brain cells shiver when it needs to solve using laws. I remember all laws but dont get correct answer
need help plss..
Note :
* Determine whether each pair of statements is logically equivalent*
1. ~(~p --- q) and p --- ~q
note --- is Implies
2. ~(p or q ) and ( ~p) V ( ~q)
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
thanks.
Hi. I don't know if it was too late but the two statements are not logically equivalent. I used truth tables to determine it.
P. s. I am also a student so correct me if I'm wrong
Thank you.
When you are given :
10. Which of the following set of expressions is not equivalent to each other?
a) 𝑝 and (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∨ (𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞)
b) 𝑝 → (𝑞 → 𝑟) and (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → 𝑟
c) (𝑝 → 𝑞) → 𝑟 and (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → 𝑟
d) All of the above are correct
How you would solve the above in less than ONE MINUTE please? Using truth table will take a lot time, so I don't think it's recommended here.
The analogy made it it click. Where possible please include the real world applications of the topic.
The color coding helps.
Bro if you became a lecturer your class would always have top grades
Dr. Terfor good day! I just want to ask a question about this topic. I probably need your help.
It can be verified that if p and q are statement then
A. (Left side) ~ (p^q) = ~pv~q (right side)
B. (Left side) ~(pvq) = ~p^~q (right side)
Use this equivalence to rewrite the statement.
YOU ARE NOT SINGLE AND NOT THE HEAD OF A HOUSEHOLD.
So Dr. Terfor what could be the answer of this situation , I want your help.
It could be?
A1. (Left side) You are single and the head of a household.
A1.(Right side) You are single or the head of a household.
B1. (Right side) You are single or the head of a household.
B2. (Left side) You are single and the head of a household.
Am I right Sir? I hope for your response. Thank you so much in advance!
awesome , thanks
Would ~p∧p just cross itself out?
It is all the sort of thing that I learned at my grandmother's knee
Nice teacher
I'm from india
Great video mate. Really unfortunate spelling of ur name, u must get Trevor a lot
I am unable yo.join Chanel Help me
Hmmm weird. There is a button called "Join" beneath each video, what happens when you go through that?
@@DrTrefor i got it what was happening
@@DrTrefor but i have a problem For Payment i don't have theSe Cards For Payment
Wait, "~" is spelled "knot"? I assumed it was just "not" since it kind of means the same thing haha
🔥🔥🔥
thanks yous
أبلع لايك ❤❤
But imagine writing such dumb if statements... I don't see why we would need this at all.
2021🤠
Just flip it
👏
wow.
Translate in tamil plz🙏🙏