You didn't mention the role carriers play in disaster relief: When hurricanes hit the Caribbean, a carrier was wired to a grid to provide power, and the desalinization plant onboard provided water.
The 3rd largest city in my state and one of its main ports (im not sure how many people lived there at the time but theres over 200k living there now) had a major power outage once due to some power plants being knocked out, so they literally hooked an aircraft carrier up to the power grid and powered most of the city with it.
I was stationed on USS Nimitz from 2006-2011, in the electrical division of the engineering department. I worked on lighting and electrical systems all over the ship, so I got to know it really well. It's so much larger and more complex than it seems from the outside; the interior of a carrier is like an ant hill, especially below the main deck. I still have dreams where I'm going through hangar bays, ladder wells, machinery spaces, pump rooms, bilges, etc.
@@mrnewskin7831 , keep dreaming about Russian and Chinese capabilities. Just last week Russia tested a cruise missile that they want to use to target American Carriers. The damn thing exploded with its nuclear reactor and not only killed 5 of the scientists developing it but caused the worst Russian Nuclear accident since Cherynobil. Remember Russia and China is still more then 15 years behind us in all technology
@@legitimate_opposition2002 *laughs in european* we dont waste our money on useless things like that. We have a health care system, public education, properer(ish) democracy and overall a higher quality of life. Europe surely isnt without its problems but we surely arent envy on the US military, else wed have a bigger one. The EU has the higher GDP and the higher man power. If we wanted, we could outpay you. But we dont and so we wont. And Im glad for that. But good luck with investing in death, from what I know, it has a horrible return on investment.
@@legitimate_opposition2002 lol no EU was a shithole and still is a shithole but it gets better. USA is going nosedive down. And welcome in the 21st century, the war was 80 years ago and you have more nazis than us. Better make sure theyre armed for their next genocide.
There was also the UK in WW2. That is the country where the American, Canadian, Australian, British and many other nation’s militaries gathered for D-day
Darkwarrior0920 and why would you need to have a aircraft carrier the size of a city carrying nuclear warheads that would put warning bells on everyone’s radar and you would get a sanction by other country’s we have ICBMs for a reason
For a country with such a looooong history of going to war with every motherfucker in the room you think the French could think of more than 1 war hero to name shit after. At least the US has the excuse of being relatively young, only becoming a major power in the last 150 years and for most of its recorded history it was only a backwater collection of disjointed settlements. France was famous for its warriors since the days of Rome, yet they name everything after a dude that died so recently there are plenty of people on this site that remember him making the news.
So they can deploy them to multiple locations at once, and have carriers on standby to fill in for others in dock for repairs and maintenance. (Yes I know you were joking.)
Aircraft carriers are a waste and everybody knows it. One nuclear pulse from a ballistic missile and the whole group is useless. They are just the Navy's way to get promotions and budgets. They never fight. When Trump tried to threaten N. Korea, the only carrier we had in the Pacific ran away. During the peak of the cold war, we had three. Now that they are useless, we have 11. 12?
@kevin your logic is garbage, even the one down corrected you, they are supported by 5 other ship that are good at different defense for your carrier, anyway 1 submarine and all your 11 carrier are fuckin down
Aircraft carriers are also dispatched in times of emergency as the have the capability to airlift victims to their highly trained medical staff. Gerald R. Ford, first in the class, has an on-board hospital that includes a full lab, pharmacy, operating room, 3-bed intensive care unit, 2-bed emergency room, and 41-bed hospital ward, staffed by 11 medical officers and 30 hospital corpsmen.
I find it so cool that a carrier literally has hangars below its deck. I used to think that all aircraft would be stored on the deck, I didn´t think about the carrier having space for even more aircraft. So you imagine my face of disbelief when I played the carrier mission in BF4
They can go faster than 35 MPH although I am sure their actual top speed is classified. When I was in Japan we escorted a carrier out of port. Our patrol boats maxed out at a certian speed greater than 35 knots and the carrier left us behind when we reached open water. 35knots>35MPH
exactly, our carriers are the fastest boats in the navy, with the nuclear power... they also can go that speed indefinitely. Like John Smith said, its more like 70-75 mph.... Which is just insane with how big it is
@lilbeserk most are civilians though these ships are armed and tend to have retired military personnel on for security. the reason for this that companies will send goods for cheap , and supply ships are not near the fleet for long since the supply ships go for refuel and pick up of new supplies.
My uncle was an officer on the USS Carl Vinson. He gave my mom sis and me a tour of it. I remember seeing the anchor on the outside and thinking it was so small (in comparison) During the tour we ended up in the room that houses the anchor chain. Each chain link was as big as me. That was insanely cool
Crazy part is where the full length of that massive anchor chain goes inside the ship -- two giant wells that go down the full height of the ship. I remember watching a tiny deck sailor get lowered into one via harness so she could clean the bottom. Scary business.
On a modern US Carrier, the superstructure, known as the "island," has about 6 decks that view the flight deck: The lowest one, which is at flight deck level, is where the movement officer is stationed, who is responsible for coordinating aircraft movement on the flight deck. Two levels above that, is an enclosed platform where a camera is mounted that gives a panoramic view of the flight deck, and is used for supervising and recording all aircraft operations. Directly above that is the Flag Bridge, then the actual Bridge, and at the top of the superstructure is the Control tower, who coordinates launching and recovering aircraft.
Babylon falling Israel didn’t want the US to know how they will execute Operation Focus. If the US knew, a slip of intelligence may squeak out to the Arab league. There were many different scenarios that could compromise the operation. At the time, Iran could’ve sided with the Arabs that would’ve made religion more of the reason to defeat Israel. Iran already acquired American military hardware by 1967. Maybe the Israelis knew the capabilities of the F4 Phantom better than America did. At the time, Israel were using the Mirage fighter which took on the role of both tactical aerial dog fighter and bomber. F4 was a high altitude interceptor that can easily look down and shoot down the Mirages and also a very proficient attack bomber. I’m guessing the Iranians had something to do with why the Liberty was attacked. Research vessels gather information and radio waves. Mossad had their reasons but the reason can be that they exercised complete black out of any form of intelligence leading to the day of the attack.
I served on board the U.S.S. Ranger CV61 Ranger when I first walked up to this ship I was in complete awe by just the size of these ships. It is amazing how huge these these ships are.
They shoudl paint Cool paint jobs on the front and sides of these ships like fighter planes Shark Teeth. For the missile cruisers they should paint a dick on the side and for the carrier they should paint a big black dick
As someone who has been on 2 Nimitz class carriers and the Gerald R. Ford, you did a very great job in this video. It was very accurate and well researched, probably the most informative video on RUclips.
i've tracked carriers, they go much faster than 35. The ship i was on couldn't cruise with carriers because we weren't fast enough, lol, not even close.
@@xjones2087 uhm... classified info much? then again it's peacetime, so most of the ships doesn't get put through it's paces... aka a hidden sword up their ass crack and ready to rip.
Moocus14 we’re still the only country to land humans on the moon, and we have plans to go back by 2024 with progress going well. All that while have the biggest military in the world. No other country has landed humans on the moon yet, even though they had 50 years to do so. So yeah
For your end of video question, my thoughts on what I know about the doors are: If the statement is false, with current supplied information we can't correctly infer the safety of either door. Logically the information that the statement is false doesn't point to a specific point of the statement, just the statement as a whole. So if the statement "If this door is safe, the other door is deadly" is false, it could mean "If this door is safe, the other door is safe." Thus both doors could be safe. It could also read, "If this door is deadly, the other door is deadly", in which case both doors are deadly. Logically I'd leave the doors alone, because deadly is an absolute that I wouldn't gamble a 50/50 on.
Good idea, I’ll bet someone wants you going and seeing what’s in the first door with the funny writing on it 🤨 I’m not sure I can infer anything other than it’s definitely a trap for you. But then, 50/50 isn’t that bad of odds really in the cosmological schemes of things, I’d say…
I reached the same conclusion: Either both doors are safe, or both are deadly. If you can safely inspect one to see if passing through will be safe or deadly (for example, tossing a frog through), you'll know the state of the other.
@@スーパーカーのタイヤ I forget the name of the show, but it was indeed a reference to an episode I saw years ago. They're confronted with two doors and two frogs as guardians, one always lies and the other always tells the truth. One door leads to safety, the other to death. The guy has had it up to here, so he grabs a frog and tosses it through a door, causing it to burst into flames. He slams the door and says "welp, it wasn't that one!".
@@danielhale1 Actually, you can't say that with confidence. The sign states that "If door A is safe, door B is deadly" Assuming that is true, there are two options for door A. Option 1: Door A is safe, therefore Door B is deadly Option 2: Door A is deadly, and we therefore know nothing about Door B because the sign only provides information on the situation if Door A is Safe. Based on that, if we know the sign is False, then we can say Option 1: Door A is Safe and Door B is safe. Option 2: Door A is Deadly and we still no nothing about door B. If you must choose a door in this case, choose Door B as in any situation where Door A is Safe, Door B is also safe, but there are cases where Door b is safe and Door A is not.
Hey all! I hope you’re having a great holiday season. I just started an Instagram account in order to connect with the youths. It has pictures of me and stuff so get ready for that. I’ll probably post a picture of a plane on it later today. Just make sure to follow me there: instagram.com/Sam.from.wendover
I almost felt young when I read "connect with the youth" then I remembered that... Sam, we're of the same age. I think we're still considered young by most of the world. Anyway, you got a new follower.
you said that only 19 aircraft carriers are able to launch fixed wing aircraft, but I would rephrase that to 19 that are currently able to support CTOL-only aircraft. By this method we would consider VTOL-supporting carriers like amphibious transport ships that can carry F35 and V22.
I noticed that, he may have just forgot about them since they're not really in use yet. Gonna be a good few years until the British carriers become fully operational and useable in a war
@@Fermonos1 The aircraft carrier itself is but as far as i know there's barely any planes to put on it, currently being tested with F35's but even then there's only about half of the planned capacity of the carrier and the training for the pilots is still ongoing.
I had been onboard the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) for 2 years. One day, walking through the hanger bay from stern to aft, there was another sailor walking aft to stern. I stopped and said, "David?" It was a guy that I grew up with. I asked how long he had been on the FID and he said "a year." I saw him once and never saw him again. Because of our ratings and where we worked and lived, we never got to see each other again. During the time I was onboard, there were murders, suicides, thefts, drug dealing, and all sorts of crime. Like any other city, it wasn't immune to crime. Onboard there is the MAA (Master's at Arms), the ship's police. Sometimes Marines, but mostly Navy -- all carrying a 45 on their hip.
This really reminds me of the Battleships game I sometimes used to play as a child. I've always never liked the aircraft carriers because they're the largest and probably easiest to spot. It also felt pretty bad when someone else sunk it. Thanks for the great video.
@@cookiecookie1411 > If the first one is deadly, the sign cannot be considered "false" since you don't address what happens if it is deadly. This is terrible logic. It could still be false, even though it's not addressed. Unknown =! false. Therefore, the only thing we know is that it can't be 1.safe 2.deadly.
@@Co1010z Exactly. If the first door is safe, the second door is also safe. If the first door is deadly, nothing is known about the 2nd door. Also, we have no information about rather or not the first door is safe or deadly. However, the options on the quiz are: 1. Both doors are safe 2. The first door is safe; the second door is deadly 3. The first door is deadly, the second door is safe 4. Both doors are deadly I'm not so impressed with Brilliant.org if this is a legitimate sample question.
i dont know, China is pretty bold about stealing tech and secrets from the US military, I wouldnt be surprised if they sent spies to steal the Beats By Dre some sailor ordered.
I lived on one for 5 yrs 97-02. Was able to launch off of and land on it once in the C2 plane this video talked about. Was great experience in my younger days.
@Jason Stark Say that when the US is not the top economy in the world with businesses in every country in the world save for North Korea and military presence in nearly all countries as well.
basically what japan sees during ww2: Japan: so..ok..The only Remaining aircraft carrier they have is USS Enterprise and it sank Japan: wait..what do you mean she survive Japan: wait... Saratoga is back? Japan: Wait..what do you mean Enterprise have Steam catapults and newer aircrafts Japan: WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY HAVE NEW CLASS CALLED ESSEX CLASS Japan: *WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY CREATED 32 ESSEX CLASS CARRIERS???!!!*
Beacuse of the heated situation in the West Philippine Sea. China is building massive military bases on islands of the Philippines, which is by the way supposed to be illegal. However our president keeps telling us that it is a friendly matter which is most of us Filipinos think that it's not. Seriously though I would rather allow U.S. bases on our islands or waters than having those military based from China which imposes great threat in our freedom.
@@uwanttono4012 1) That's what they're designed to do. Predict where the missile is going to be, and then launch missiles there. The AA missile doesn't have to go into orbit, so no matter how fast the ballistic missile is, there will always be time to react. 2) Give me a reasonable scenario where China manages to successfully launch a nuclear attack on the United States and doest get at least detected and nuked into oblivion in return.
@@dullen2810 It's the hypersonic speed of the DF-26 that currently makes it impossible to intercept with present technology even though this technology is constantly improving. Why should I engage with you re your 2nd question? I have no interest in promoting one side over another. I am merely stating facts.
From someone that served on the USS George Washington CVN-73, good job with this video! Very well done. One nit pick, that top speed is what is declassified. They're faster than that ;)
Kerry Collier omg that’s worse than being forced to mop the flight deck 😂where do you guys come up with this stuff Like making us ask the CO for the keys to the jet 😭
Gonna change my CoD clan tag (cringey, huh?) to FLDG (fl - flat d- deck g- gang) on like, some old one or something. Maybe original Black Ops (I prefer BO2 sadly)
This video did not mention that whenever an American aircraft carrier and its strike group shows up, the song "America fuck yeah" is suddenly heard playing in the background.
I'm a welder for these things... let me tell you what, the tight spaces? Living nightmare. I have nothing but respect for the men and women who serve on those behemoths.
Carriers are pretty much modern starships. Giant vessels with smaller craft to defend it. Takes thousands of people to operate. Crosses relatively enormous distances extremely far from civilisation. It plays that exact same role
Ball caps or covers are part of the Navy's working uniform. When a carrier is at sea, the cap is considered as a foreign object debris (FOD) that could ruin a jet engine so they aren't allowed on the flight deck. They also aren't required anywhere else except on the bridge where they are mandatory just for entry. As a flight deck guy that sometimes had to go on the bridge, I would have to make a long trip to my locker to get a cap and then make a long trip up to the bridge.
@@MrJimheerenflight deck guys would normally never need a ball cap at sea. In fact, they are considered FOD (foreign object debris) around aircraft. We look forward to getting underway and locking that cap up for the entire time. It's only to get a working over the side chit or a crunch report signed that we would ever go up there.
Don’t get confused by the color codes. Those vehicles contains lots of Souls, Human Being, Our or Your Family and that is important than anything. So, how do you expect that, makers of any kind of vehicle like that will tell you the truth?
Swedish submarine wasn’t the only one. But they like to erase things from history. Same thing with their radar invisible planes. French were like “yeah we can see them. But we won’t tell anyone. Fix it.”
@@sn4tx nice baiting but you're wrong. If anything you said was true, France wouldn't be striving to build a better stealth craft than the F35. Everybody wants to undermine the United States Navy with these cherry-picked scenarios that simply would not be replicated in actual combat conditions. Here you're talking about a submarine that has to hunt and kill an aircraft carrier. Where do you start? All of a sudden you realize right away how silly the "lol American carrier got sunk by diesel sub in wargame" sounds. The Swedish submarine had predetermined information of where the carrier would be operating, knew the composition of the fleet, and had the luxury of having time to prepare for the attack. In reality, you have to take about a hundred more factors into the equation to complete a kill chain on an American carrier with any weapon platform. The hardest thing in naval warfare is locating the enemy vessels. Even with all of our innovations in technology, it's still not possible to precisely track enemy fleets everywhere around the world. And since the Swedish submarine is diesel, there is very little chance it will find the carrier before it needs to refuel and resupply. In reality, though, the United States would simply use its speed and range to avoid any sort of sneaking submarine into the range of the carrier. But let's say for instance the submarine does find the carrier, however unlikely, it still needs to avoid detection. Even if the carrier is traveling at its slowest pace, it's still too fast for the diesel submarine to catch it. Cavitation happens for even the best and stealthiest submarines at 5-10 knots, with the exception being the United States Seawolf-class submarine with somewhere around 15-20 knots of speed before it begins to cavitate. The point is that even if the diesel submarine finds the carrier, the odds of it getting into a position to attack are slim as the carrier can outrun it even at a slow pace. And if the Diesel sub does attempt to travel above 5 knots, it will likely be detected by surface vessels or the opposing submarine and be hunted down within the hour. Next, you have to assume your weapons are going to hit the target. The diesel submarine might avoid detection, but the torpedo will be detected as soon as it's in the water. At this point, surface vessels will have launched decoys to throw the torpedo of course, mess with its tracker, and anything else to screw up the kill. However, these decoys are not very reliable, and will most likely be ignored by the on-board tracker. All in all the torpedo has about a 50/50 chance of a hit, assuming the weapon doesn't fail in-transit and was aimed properly. There are simply too many factors in a real-world scenario to really be concerned about a single diesel submarine. It would be a different story if there were dozens of them infested the ocean, but the whole "Swedish Submarine OP" is the dumbest excuse to undermine the United States Navy to date. It's a lot more complicated than just "lol get a stealthy submarine lol"
One of my high school teachers was a freshly new commissioned Lt. from the naval academy that served on the Enterprise during Vietnam. He always talked about how young he was and was in charge of up to 1000 sailors in the boiler rooms on the carrier. His navy sea stories were always the best!
*My answer to the question is:* There are four possible combinations of deadly/save doors: 1=safe & 2=safe (sign is false) 1=safe & 2=deadly (sign is true) 1=deadly & 2=safe (sign is unknow/indeterminate, in other words: neither true nor false) 1=deadly & 2=deadly (sign is unknow/indeterminate/neither true nor false) The sign is false, only when *both doors are safe.* However, the question can be interpreted in multiple ways (like Swiffah and others explain below). (note 11:20, the original question on Brilliant explicitly states "There are two doors before you that are _either_ safe _or_ deadly")
Brilliant should specify what kind of conditional they mean. If it's a material conditional, then @Æ is right: A->B is false iff A true and B false. If it's something else (e.g. a counterfactual or indicative conditional) then the answer would be different.
@@Swiffah145 Yeah, this was my line of thinking. You have two indeterminate states, the sign can be false, but since it describes a safe door, if door 1 is deadly, it's impossible to determine the state of door 2.
@@mtf_nine_tailed_fox385 we do - but someone put the wrong fuel in them & buggered the engines from memory & they were grounded for around 12 months - cost a billion to replace them 'em - pretty sure they back up now though..
@@AurumFaber Don't think it was quite that high, as all of the WWII era "jeep carriers" were long since retired and there never were all THAT many LHA-class ships.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 I just reviewed my encyclopedia. I did not have it at the time that I posted my reply. It compares major navies at the time. It says; *US* : 742,000 personal, *56 carriers* , 37 cruisers, 694 destroyers, 260 landing craft, 207 submarines, 137 conventional, 70 nuclear. Russia; 500,000 personal, 0 carriers, 20 cruisers, 210 destroyers, 230 landing craft, 380 submarines, 340 conventional, 40 nuclear. *(Including warships not on active duty)* It doesn't give any more information on these specific navies than I have given. The encyclopedia list it's source as: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1966-1967 This is page 67 of the *N* book.
@@AurumFaber 56 carriers in the mid-1960s sounds about right - pretty much all of the Essex/Ticonderoga class that lived through WW II, many of the Forestall class (not sure if they all were in service yet, there were 2 built AFTER Enterprise), I think Big E was in service by then, and some of the "jeep" carriers were retained for a while.
The sign doesn't just simply say "This door is safe, the other door is deadly" so that you can use logical equations to get the answer. It is a condition, the sign says "IF this door is safe...". When we negate that sign, we're negating only the condition, which means that there's no correlation between the two doors that we know of. The sign doesn't actually tell us anything about the status of the two doors and therefore we have no way of knowing whether either of them is safe. When a conditional sentence is false, it's the same as not having a sentence in the first place. Basically, the problem has no solution. Of course it could also be that the question is simply badly formulated, but in that case, the mistake speaks volumes about the people who made it.
actually it does have correlation between the 2 doors , its just "conditional" but yeah dosen't tell you much about the doors except you need to open door 1 if you must open A door.
@@Casual_spectator I don't understand. All I see is that option 2 is not possible. 1,3,4 all seems possible. Lets say both doors are safe. The sign which says if door 1 is safe, then door 2 must be deadly will be false, since in this situation, door 1 is safe, while door 2 is safe as well. (meaning the sign was a lie/false) So option 1 satisfies the requirement of the sign being false as well. For option 3 and 4, the sign does not specify what should happen if the door is deadly, so if the sign is false, option 3 and 4 can still happen, as there are no restrictions about what must happen if the door is deadly. All that is specified by the fact that the sign is false is that if door 1 is safe, then door 2 cannot be deadly, as that would make the sign true, which cannot happen. The sign being false does not say anything about what must happen if door 1 is deadly. (e.g if I say that ball A is green, and I am wrong, then that just means that ball A is not green, and me being wrong does not have any implications about the colour of ball B.) I don't get what you are saying about the sign being true and false at the same time. If the sign is false, then options 1, 3, and 4, can all apply.
@@Casual_spectator I'm guessing you're probably still confused, let me simplify it Your friend tells you the cupcake is in the cupboard Your friend is lying What does this tell you about the cupcake? 1: The cupcake is not there 2: It's impossible to know Option 1 seems to be the obvious choice, if he's lying about the cupcake being there then it must be not there, this works in 0 or 1 type thinking but not in the real world where Option 2 is the correct choice, hence the cupcake can only be half there, 3/4 there, 1/4 there, in any of those situations EXCEPT for the cupcake being there, your friend would still be lying and therefore any of those situations work and therefore you really can't know for sure. Example 2: Your tenant says they have paid the rent They're lying Does this mean they have not paid the rent? Again, no, because they could have always paid some of the rent in which case they technically paid the rent just not all of it, and they technically haven't paid the rent because they didn't pay all of it, the statement they made is still a lie in either case, it does not make it "true and false" at the same time, it makes it purely false, just like saying "i did not go to the park" does not make "i went outside" false as well. Of course in code, something like boolean ifWindowOpen = True; if (ifWindowOpen) {//some code} will always be true, but this problem is not like a boolean value, it is more like if the below statement tested True: if (x
@@DeadDinosaur The sign doesn't say "this door is safe" so your cupcake example is not analogous. If the door is safe the other is deadly, which is false, therefor the truth is if one is safe the other must be safe. The answer to the question is the doors are paired, if one is safe the other is safe, if one is deadly the other is deadly.
@@Malevolantgoat The right door being safe is also a possibility because the sign says "if THIS door is safe", it tells you nothing about the other door, if the right door is safe, the left door can be safe or deadly, you have no way of knowing. it does not say "if the door is safe the other is deadly", it says "if THIS door is safe" and there is no sign on the other door to imply that it says the same thing. The sign being false means: "if THIS door is NOT safe, the other door is NOT deadly" which means that if the left door is deadly, the other one is safe, which means that the right door being safe and the left door being deadly is a possibility as well, the only possibility that's not possible is the possibility the sign describes, which is "if THIS door is safe, the other one is deadly" which means if the left door is safe, the right one is deadly, which is the only possibility that can not be true. Your explanation would be correct if the sign said "if ONE door is safe, the other is deadly", in that case any possibility where the two doors are in differing states would be wrong.
"Hey girl, I work in the US Navy" "Wow" "Yeah, I work on an aircraft carrier" "Oh cool, what do you do?" "I'm a pilot" "No way, so what do you fly? Fighter jets, helicopters?" "Nah, I fly in the fighter pilots mail in a small propellor plane" "............"
Why would you downplay anyone serving so you have a country to receive your mail in. Obviously youre very insecure if you had to Hey girl that youre anything
One of the main logistical challenges of operating the Queen Elizabeth carriers is of course maintaining the beer stocks in the onboard pub. If the beer runs out...back to port (get it?).
Max Aggropop I was a gunners mate on the USS Ranger, CVA-61 for two years. I handled a shitload of ordinance. FifthDivision was responsible for storing ordinance in bomb magazines. We also moved it from the magazines to the second deck so the Airedales could assemble the bombs, fuses and fins to the flight deck. I did NOT wear a red shirt.
There was also a portuguese submarine (barracuda) in 1983 during an exercise called "locked gate 83" wich was able to get under an american aircraft carrier (Eisenhower) that was passing by. The american ship was going to the mediterranean to replace another american aircraft carrier and so being alies, the portuguese commander thougt it was a good idea to stop the exercise and follow the strike group without telling them in order to prevent any soviet attacks. It turned out he was able to get under the ship without getting identified. The portuguese convetional sub was unable to keep the speed of the strike group tho and so when dettaching from the group it came to the surface and transmitted that they had launched all their torpedoes. The american bridge was concerned but they understood it was a joke. They ended up praising the portuguese comander and asking for it's recordings in order to study why had they been unable to detect it.
@Bill Bo Haggins Phalanx is for pussies....Put on your big boy pants - Take a Phalanx up scale it to 30mm rounds and you get GOALKEEPER. ruclips.net/video/nY6nm-6eCzM/видео.html
USA carriers in Hollywood movies :- fighting alien ships USA carriers in reality :- sailing arround globe Sailors on the deck chanting ' what do we do with the drunken sailor '
@Iskandar Ibrahim Oh, like Saddam tried to steal ALL OF KUWAIT? Or North Korea tried to steal South Korea? Among other examples of thefts the US has spent our own resources and lives PREVENTING?
@Iskandar Ibrahim are you just angry that we destroyed a lot of your property? thats understandable, but you also forget we bought all of those resources :)
Thank you so much for showcasing the mighty COD! It is definite the best naval aircraft ever made. You got one thing wrong tho. We base on land, mostly, fly out to the boat, and then fly back to land for the night. That alleviates maintenance, berthing, space, etc needed for two more planes onboard. Plus, we operate better when we’re there on land to coordinate the cargo. And it’s 4 less meat-eaters to worry about onboard. Trust me on that one. Thanks again!
‘If this door is safe, the other door is deadly.’ Assuming that this is false, that means that if door 1 is safe, so is door 2. However if door 1 is deadly, door 2 is unaffected, and can be either safe or deadly. This means that there are 3 outcomes, both doors are safe, door 1 is deadly and door 2 is safe, or door 1 and door 2 are deadly. Door 1 has a 1/3 chance of being safe while door 2 has a 2/3 chance, meaning that door 2 has a higher chance of being safe than door 1.
While I agree on the possibilities, the probabilities are not necessarily true. We have no information about probabilities. So you are ASSUMING uniform distribution of the 4 base combinations of doors.
Reynard Nathaniel Most of the developed grown-up nation’s have just as skilled militaries as the US. They simply lack the gargantuan resources. Wargames between the US/UK/France and Germany for example are not nearly as one-sided as you might think. Far from it.
@@gogobrasil7185 eh... china? i give it a 50/50 chance of superiority and 70/30 chance of total bullcrap that will sink their navy like their plastic produces
AsHalt the crap they produce comes from their civil industries, which mass produce for the entire world. Different from their military which not only has a lot more manpower, is very important for keeping the stability in their government.
That's what the Americans said to the Japanese because they produced low quality stuff before they got wrecked on the early part of world war 2. Don't underestimate.
Alright, I think that I'm able to clarify the sign problem at the end... It states "If the sign is false, what's true about the doors?" but that is exactly the problem with this quiz question. It says the sign is false, not that the conditional statement evaluates to false. If the sign is false we don't have enough information to answer any questions about the states of both doors. However, if the conditional statement evaluates to false, then all the sudden we know the exact states of the doors. A conditional statement is false if its hypothesis is true and its conclusion is false so door 1 must be safe and door 2 cannot be deadly, so it is also safe. I have a question for brilliant.org: If the quiz question is poorly worded, it will lead to great understanding of deductive reasoning. If this sentence is false, what's true about the quiz? ◯ The quiz is enlightening. ◯ The quiz is less than helpful. ◯ It's the suckzorz.
The problem is that the sign says that IF (the first door is safe), then(result). There is no condition for if the door is deadly and there is no guarantee that the door is safe. The only answer that can be ruled out is the second one because we know that the statement that is on the sign is false. The first answer is possible, but so are 3 and 4 since the sign makes no suggestion of what could be true if the first door is deadly. #3 and #4 could both be true regardless of the sign being correct or not. Its a dumb question. It honestly doesn't give me much faith in Brilliant.
I'm confused what you mean by the difference between the sign being false and the conditional statement on the sign evaluating to false? Aren't both those equivalent to saying "it is not true that 1 is safe implies 2 is deadly?"
@@Jop_pop It's kind of a weird way of thinking about it to most people, but the sign is not the same thing as the condition on the sign. So it's like asking, is the sign and whoever put it up full of shit, or is the condition on the sign false?
Fine, I'll answer your sponsor question. Let A be "1st door is safe" and B "2nd door is safe". Then (A ⇒ ¬B) ⇔ (¬A ∨ ¬B) ⇔ ¬(A ∧ B) ⇔ A ⊼ B (i.e. NAND, not both A and B). Assuming the logical structure of the plate can be trusted and only its truth value is in question, this means we have the following cases: If the statement is true, then both doors cannot be safe, in which cases the first door is safe ans second is deadly. If the statement is false, i.e. A ∧ B is true, then both are safe. In all cases, the first door is always a safe bet.
@@yardenm15 Thanks, but I actually think it's flawed. I might have mixed up some conjunction there when I gave this task to my students, and when we analyzed it by covering all different cases if they made sense, I think we got a differet result.
If you're confused by the logic problem, don't worry, so was I. It's a bad example for someone who hasn't ever seen formal logic. In Logic, the "if A then B" statement is defined in such a way that it can only be false if condition A is true and condition B is false. A good example would be that of a warranty. Let's say you buy warranty for your phone that says "IF your phone breaks for any reason (condition A), THEN we will replace it for free (condition B)." It can only be a false statement if your phone breaks and they don't replace it for free. If your phone never breaks, then you will never know if the warranty would have been honored (i.e. the statement cannot be proved false).
The other confusing part about these types of problems is that they could walk and in and replace your phone without you requesting it, but it doesn't mean the phone was broken.
@@EstrellaViajeViajero As bizarre as that would be, the warranty statement would still be true, because the IF condition never occurred (i.e. condition A is false). You can't complain about the company not honoring their warranty if the phone never breaks. The warranty says nothing about what they will do if it never breaks. Regarding the two doors problem, the we are told "IF door 1 is safe, THEN door two is deadly." That statement can only be false if door 1 is safe but door 2 is safe as well. If door one is deadly, the statement is not provably false (because the IF condition is not met) and therefore would be true, according to the rules of formal logic.
The example in video is a pretty good example of the logical nature of the material conditional. Your example obscures matters, since the statement you introduce is really a subjunctive conditional pretending to be a material conditional. As a subjunctive conditional, it is not properly explicated as a material conditional, but must be understood as a modal claim.
@@ClockCutter You're speaking as someone familiar with the subject, not thinking about how the problem would sound to a novice. It's not a good way to get someone interested in the subject. It's confusing to a novice because using common sense (not formal logic) tells us that knowing the sign is false tells us nothing about whether or not door 1 is safe or deadly. Only when we apply the arbitrary rule that, within formal logic, such a statement is TRUE if the initial condition is false, can we deduce the correct answer.
@@chadwickthezulu its kind of annoying that the rules of the game are not explained at the start but you can figure it out using common sense I did it just was a little confusing like reading legal documents its like a different language or someone with a bad accent. sorry about grammar am typing on a remote.
My dad was a flight surgeon on the USS Saratoga in the mid-80s, when she was launching bombing runs on Qaddafi’s Libya- he probably had to treat half a dozen personnel whose legs were ripped clean off by those catapults. The potential energy in those things is tremendous. Great video btw
Actually no. The thing about aircraft carriers is they are very vulnerable in narrow waters - there is no way any carrier is going through the Straits of Hommuz, which are so narrow that the Iranians could hole it with 105mm field artillery, let alone serious antishipping stuff. The USAF, not the USN, is Iran's headache.
And funny thing, the India and China got theirs from our Russia, cuz we just sold em. Truly the greatest ditch in our gov. No money for maintainence ? Off you go. We're lucky to keep Kuznetsov around.
When I was a kid, I took swimming lessons in an indoor pool located right next to a harbour and one day I went to the pool and looked out the window and saw an aircraft carrier parked in the harbour and I was just blown away Update: So I just discovered the carrier I saw a kid was actually the USS Boxer which isn’t actually an aircraft carrier. She’s a Wasp-class Amphibious assault ship.
The door question is, essentially, one of sentential logic. "If this door is safe, then the other door is deadly" is a normal conditional of for "If p, then q" where p is the sentence "This door is safe" and q "the other door is deadly". The informal semantics of sentential logic tells us that a conditional will be true so long as either the antecedent (p) is false OR the consequent (q) true. Therefore, the only way for a conditional to be false is for p to be true and q to also be false. Since we know the statement on the first door is false, we therefore also know that its antecedent is true and its consequent false. That is to say, "This door (door 1) is safe, and the other door (door 2) is *not* deadly". However, since a door being simply not deadly is not exactly the same as it being safe, since the former doesn't necessarily preclude any bodily harm just fatal harm, I think the unambiguously "correct" decision would be to take door #1, the door the sign is on.
In context of the entire question it is presupposed that doors are either safe or deadly by necessity. Considering the reasoning you initially provided, door 2 cannot be deadly. Therefore, given there are no more than two options for the state of a door, door 2 is also safe. It is also to be noted that the states of both doors were questioned (as opposed to the most optimal choice for mitigating harm).
@@mr.winter538 Only if we agree to subscribe to the paradigm that allows for statements to be vacuously true. And also if we agree that the language is well-defined, of course. It is not a universal axiom that a false premise in a conditional statement always yields a vacuously true statement. I would not suppose that people who post deadly signs on doors also subscribe to the same paradigm, and therefore I would not enter either one.
@@supershluffy Does the statement „There are two doors in front of you that are either safe or deadly” not imply the paradigm that allows for statements to be vacuously true? Considering the initially provided logic, we can all agree that the door cannot be deadly. This suggests the door can only either be safe or neither safe nor deadly. Since the door being neither safe nor deadly contradicts the dichotomous nature of the possibility of the states of each door that has been presupposed by the statement provided above, I would assume the door can only be safe. You are of course right in that we have to assume that all language is well-defined, however since we can neither test nor influence this from the perspective of the writers of the sign, I would argue this is a fair assumption to make. Lastly it is of course the best option to enter neither of the doors, since we have no reason to assume the writers of the sign were genuine, and can’t exclude the possibility of human error or false assumptions from either us or the writer.
@@mr.winter538 No, it does not imply that. For the simplest proof, we can just suppose that both doors lead to the same room of death. Therefore, even though the door on the left is deadly (i.e, even though the premise of the conditional is false), the entire sign statement is still false. Meaning that in this case, the sign does not have vacuous truth. Further, let us suppose that the doors are disjoint, neither state being dependent or connected upon the other. Also let us suppose that a door can be safe or deadly, but not both, and not neither. Then, let us suppose that the door on the right is in fact safe, while the door on the left is in fact deadly. And then someone puts up the sign. In this situation, some people might say the sign is false (edit: I'm one of them, maybe you are too), since even if the left room were made safe, the right room would be unaffected and would not become deadly. So we have the situation where the left room is deadly (the premise is false), but the sign statement is still false. In this case too, the sign does not have vacuous truth. Thus, we have the sign statement "if LS then DR" (SL = safe left, DR = deadly right) In the first case, we had LS false and DR true. But there was no vacuous truth. In the second case, we had LS false and DR false. Also with no vacuous truth.
@@supershluffy To be perfectly honest I am slightly confused. Conditional statements can only be false if the premise is correct and the conclusion is false. Therefor I do not understand how such a statement could be false when the premise is false. In this example the sign makes no statement for when the left door is deadly. However since you appear to know this subject better than I do I doubt that you would make such a mistake. I either overlooked something crucial to your point or you forgot an important part of your argument. Could you please elaborate on this further?
Served on 5 USS Enterprise CVN65 USS Harry S. Truman CVN75 USS Kitty Hawk CV63 USS George Washington CVN73 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN69 Aircraft Carriers are the class of the sea. Go Navy!
Thank you for your self-sacrificing service sir!!!! None of you get the recognition you deserve, except the high officers and pilots. I applaud all those doing the "minor jobs," you are truly the backbone of the Navy!!!!
USA: Oh boy, look at how close North Korea have put their country next to our 3 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The nerve! The balls! (hits table) - This is *clearly* an act of hostility.
"the South China Sea - an area in which China is attempting to assert control, much to the US's displeasure". The outrage of those Chinese attempting to assert control in their own sea. That's for the USA to do.
@@fireblossom9618 That's the point. The U.S. Navy freely sails in the South China Sea because it's international waters. Massive amounts of trade flow through those waters and China is trying to seize control of it. All the U.S. Navy wants is free passage.... Just with a big middle finger because it's the carriers.
Happy New Year to you too. You are from Guelph Ontario? Like, the city that had a statue of a naked family and half the city had a collective freak-out?
I used to work for a company with GSA contract and it wasn't uncommon for us to ship to a carrier. I sometimes wonder how amazon has changed this mailing situation. They must have some bundling practices for shipments, but the number of packages being shipped to a carrier has to have increased massively since online shopping was a thing.
You didn't mention the role carriers play in disaster relief: When hurricanes hit the Caribbean, a carrier was wired to a grid to provide power, and the desalinization plant onboard provided water.
@jweltsch22 you said airport and now I have an image in my head of a 747 being yeeted off the flight deck with its launching catapults.
@@switchplayer1016 Clearly too big, but they have landed and launched C-130's off of a carrier in the past.
The 3rd largest city in my state and one of its main ports (im not sure how many people lived there at the time but theres over 200k living there now) had a major power outage once due to some power plants being knocked out, so they literally hooked an aircraft carrier up to the power grid and powered most of the city with it.
@@arthas640 thank you US navy for providing ships that do double duty as both portable neuclear reactor systems and desolisation machines.
being an attack carrier like in the WW2 is more of a 2nd role today, while search and rescue/ disaster relief is more like 1th role
I was stationed on USS Nimitz from 2006-2011, in the electrical division of the engineering department. I worked on lighting and electrical systems all over the ship, so I got to know it really well. It's so much larger and more complex than it seems from the outside; the interior of a carrier is like an ant hill, especially below the main deck. I still have dreams where I'm going through hangar bays, ladder wells, machinery spaces, pump rooms, bilges, etc.
SMATF5 thank you sailor for your service. We patriots admire and appreciate you more then you know. You guys & gals are my hero’s.
To bad all u s aircraft carriers can get wiped out with one missile from either China or Russia. And we have nothing to stop them. We are so behind.
@@mrnewskin7831 , keep dreaming about Russian and Chinese capabilities. Just last week Russia tested a cruise missile that they want to use to target American Carriers. The damn thing exploded with its nuclear reactor and not only killed 5 of the scientists developing it but caused the worst Russian Nuclear accident since Cherynobil. Remember Russia and China is still more then 15 years behind us in all technology
Imagine how a space battleship would look like!
SMATF5 I used to have a recurring dream where I went through many, many rooms in my grandparents house, which I perceived as being humongous
aircraft carrier 's list to do:
-deployment
- training
- chilin
- *flex*
You forgot humanitarian aid and natural disaster relief
@@andrewmoore7022 *deployment*
large percentage of it is flex i think.
100% Flex. Rest others.
PROFIT
World's strongest airforce: US airforce
World's second strongest airforce: US Navy
* incoming angry Europeans*
@@legitimate_opposition2002 *laughs in european* we dont waste our money on useless things like that. We have a health care system, public education, properer(ish) democracy and overall a higher quality of life. Europe surely isnt without its problems but we surely arent envy on the US military, else wed have a bigger one. The EU has the higher GDP and the higher man power. If we wanted, we could outpay you. But we dont and so we wont. And Im glad for that. But good luck with investing in death, from what I know, it has a horrible return on investment.
@@invalid8774 Europe’s turning into a shit hole 😭😭😭 thanks for the paragraph buddy
@@invalid8774 Also, wasting your money on useless things could’ve possibly saved your ass’ in WW2
@@legitimate_opposition2002 lol no EU was a shithole and still is a shithole but it gets better. USA is going nosedive down.
And welcome in the 21st century, the war was 80 years ago and you have more nazis than us. Better make sure theyre armed for their next genocide.
My teacher said the biggest aircraft carrier of USA is Japan，although it can't move,it is really good.
It was Australia 75 years ago >:(
There was also the UK in WW2. That is the country where the American, Canadian, Australian, British and many other nation’s militaries gathered for D-day
It was Philippines b4 they have the biggest US military facilities outside America
@@danielearl3591 we pulled out most of our bases when your army beat the japanese but lost against emus
It technically move considering tectonic plates
We need Seacraft Carriers: large cities flying in the sky that drop boats at strategic locations.
brilliant idea, we should be able to deploy a country by a country carrier 2100
Hibiki I mean if you can make a boat the size of vieques you could absolutely send a fucking city filled with nukes and planes basically anywhere
and the boats are aircraft carriers
Somebody give this man a medal
Darkwarrior0920 and why would you need to have a aircraft carrier the size of a city carrying nuclear warheads that would put warning bells on everyone’s radar and you would get a sanction by other country’s we have ICBMs for a reason
Anything in France: *is built*
Their builders: *You'll be a Charles de Gaulle*
@Norm T I wonder if naming anything after Napolean would cause an uproar.
Anything-- isn't a verb, or subject-- in US English. Political microlog.
@@paulhetherington3854 *nor, not 'or' in your sentence.
I think we just took to long to find a name and we were like, lets just take that name
For a country with such a looooong history of going to war with every motherfucker in the room you think the French could think of more than 1 war hero to name shit after. At least the US has the excuse of being relatively young, only becoming a major power in the last 150 years and for most of its recorded history it was only a backwater collection of disjointed settlements. France was famous for its warriors since the days of Rome, yet they name everything after a dude that died so recently there are plenty of people on this site that remember him making the news.
"...That aircraft carrier with all their defenses, are not as unsinkable as some may say"
Well, there's a reason why they have 11 carriers
So they can deploy them to multiple locations at once, and have carriers on standby to fill in for others in dock for repairs and maintenance. (Yes I know you were joking.)
Aircraft carriers are a waste and everybody knows it. One nuclear pulse from a ballistic missile and the whole group is useless. They are just the Navy's way to get promotions and budgets. They never fight. When Trump tried to threaten N. Korea, the only carrier we had in the Pacific ran away. During the peak of the cold war, we had three. Now that they are useless, we have 11. 12?
And there's a reason why they travel with other 5 ships
@@DrJohnnyJ you are seriously delusional. No facts in anything you just spewed.
@kevin your logic is garbage, even the one down corrected you, they are supported by 5 other ship that are good at different defense for your carrier, anyway 1 submarine and all your 11 carrier are fuckin down
Aircraft carriers are also dispatched in times of emergency as the have the capability to airlift victims to their highly trained medical staff. Gerald R. Ford, first in the class, has an on-board hospital that includes a full lab, pharmacy, operating room, 3-bed intensive care unit, 2-bed emergency room, and 41-bed hospital ward, staffed by 11 medical officers and 30 hospital corpsmen.
I find it so cool that a carrier literally has hangars below its deck. I used to think that all aircraft would be stored on the deck, I didn´t think about the carrier having space for even more aircraft. So you imagine my face of disbelief when I played the carrier mission in BF4
All "by design" aircraft carriers have had dedicated hanger decks.
Most conversion designs like the Langley did as well.
*_RealLifeLore = Toyota Corolla_*
*_Wendover Productions = Aircraft_*
Greatest trend of STEM channels
Yesssssssssssss
For those who got these two channels mixed up.
real engineering = rocket
this guy get's it
They can go faster than 35 MPH although I am sure their actual top speed is classified. When I was in Japan we escorted a carrier out of port. Our patrol boats maxed out at a certian speed greater than 35 knots and the carrier left us behind when we reached open water. 35knots>35MPH
They go slower than their cap since boat starts breaking up
top speed is actually around 75 MPH in full steam making a wake 5 Miles long behind the ship
exactly, our carriers are the fastest boats in the navy, with the nuclear power... they also can go that speed indefinitely. Like John Smith said, its more like 70-75 mph.... Which is just insane with how big it is
@@lorekeeper685 what?
@@foxtrotdeltausn4757 the carrier going full speed, will outrun its carrier strike group
The largest airforce in the world in the US Airforce, the second largest is the US Navy LOL
welcome to america
America! Fuck yeah!
If you really want to fly, join the Army or the Navy.
That would be United States Air Force, not airforce.
@@darrenchriest300 -_-
7:47 when you're a break dancer but you wanna serve your country.
Was looking for this
That person was so cool
IKR lol
I knew someone was gonna day something about that😂
😂😂😂👌🏽
I work on those supply ships! Fun fact: they are all operated by civilians! Glad to see some appreciation!
@lilbeserk most are civilians though these ships are armed and tend to have retired military personnel on for security. the reason for this that companies will send goods for cheap , and supply ships are not near the fleet for long since the supply ships go for refuel and pick up of new supplies.
@ no it's true. They use the designation USNS instead of USS in the U.S Navy.
Funny, every onrep I was ever involved it was from a Navy supply ship
How could one work in one of those?
deathbunny Depends on the AOR. Fifth fleet has military personnel pulling security.
My uncle was an officer on the USS Carl Vinson. He gave my mom sis and me a tour of it. I remember seeing the anchor on the outside and thinking it was so small (in comparison)
During the tour we ended up in the room that houses the anchor chain. Each chain link was as big as me. That was insanely cool
Crazy part is where the full length of that massive anchor chain goes inside the ship -- two giant wells that go down the full height of the ship. I remember watching a tiny deck sailor get lowered into one via harness so she could clean the bottom. Scary business.
I was on the USS Independence CV-62. Our anchors weighed 30 tons each and the chains had 350 links that weighed 360 pounds per link.
@Friendy Frienderson If you painted the anchor, you sure as fuck did not drive the ship. And your next comment is just stupid, and makes no sense.
Same here man. My dad was in the navy and when I was very little I remember going inside of it and seeing those giant chains.
I was on the Carl Vinson CVN-70 1992-1996. BM1 I owned the Anchors...
“Sailors can even order packages online, to their ship.”
Alright, lemme pull out Uber eats.
No don't wait *Do IT*
Shipping a shipment to the ship
F-18 with the uber eats logo just lands in front of you
Rest in pieces uber eats guy
*guy on a jet ski with Uber logo slowly appears over the horizon*
Something: exists
France: let's name it Charles De Gaulle
@War Never Changes I think a Joan of arc air craft carrier would be pretty cool.
@@jasonirwin4631 I agree with you.
Charles De Gualle was nothing more than self absorbed idiot. Wait a second that sounds like most French people lol.
@@jasonirwin4631 France had an helicopter carrier named Jeanne d'Arc. But yeah, an aircraft carrier with that name would sound cool.
@@mississippirebel1409 But Trump is nothing more than a self absorbed idiot.
On a modern US Carrier, the superstructure, known as the "island," has about 6 decks that view the flight deck: The lowest one, which is at flight deck level, is where the movement officer is stationed, who is responsible for coordinating aircraft movement on the flight deck. Two levels above that, is an enclosed platform where a camera is mounted that gives a panoramic view of the flight deck, and is used for supervising and recording all aircraft operations. Directly above that is the Flag Bridge, then the actual Bridge, and at the top of the superstructure is the Control tower, who coordinates launching and recovering aircraft.
Peso
KelchanFerret qaq
Babylon falling
Israel didn’t want the US to know how they will execute Operation Focus. If the US knew, a slip of intelligence may squeak out to the Arab league. There were many different scenarios that could compromise the operation.
At the time, Iran could’ve sided with the Arabs that would’ve made religion more of the reason to defeat Israel. Iran already acquired American military hardware by 1967. Maybe the Israelis knew the capabilities of the F4 Phantom better than America did. At the time, Israel were using the Mirage fighter which took on the role of both tactical aerial dog fighter and bomber. F4 was a high altitude interceptor that can easily look down and shoot down the Mirages and also a very proficient attack bomber.
I’m guessing the Iranians had something to do with why the Liberty was attacked. Research vessels gather information and radio waves.
Mossad had their reasons but the reason can be that they exercised complete black out of any form of intelligence leading to the day of the attack.
USS Ranger had 7 decks above flight deck level - but the 0-10 level was fully enclosed so it might not count for your statement.
I was a cryptographer. I was on the O-11 level. Nothing up there but a tiny crypto room and antennas. USS Forrestal (CVA-59).
as an ex-navy man I can say that the way aircraft carriers work is first, they must be able to float.
If Poseidon finds out that you said "ex" it's gone be some drama ....from one sailor to another _sailor_
Unbelievable. You could convince millions and run for President
US Gov.: "So how many carriers are you going to build?"
US Navy: "Yes."
Great video here, thanks for sharing all this info. Thank you to all who serve.
Actually, in case of carriers and e.g. C-17 it is the other way round.... USAF repeatedly said "please staph" on C-17 delivery...
Navy: As many as possible!
US Navy: enough to empire world
@@chefgiovanni why don't you just comment your opinion and not ruin the reply section?
I served on board the U.S.S. Ranger CV61 Ranger when I first walked up to this ship I was in complete awe by just the size of these ships. It is amazing how huge these these ships are.
My uncle served also USS Ranger early 70's joseph ortega
@@espedro65 my dad did briefly around the same time before getting changed to the Kitty Hawk
my father, he's still a
farmer
Its strange how 300 meter ship can hold crew of 6000 people.
They shoudl paint Cool paint jobs on the front and sides of these ships like fighter planes Shark Teeth. For the missile cruisers they should paint a dick on the side and for the carrier they should paint a big black dick
1:54 there's something so cool about the pattern made by the boats' wake
Looks like a Kite.
they seem to be connected by some sort of cables
@@Capt_Sid Only during UnReps.
I love how you state your sources clearly. So many people don’t and it leads to massive misinformation.
As someone who has been on 2 Nimitz class carriers and the Gerald R. Ford, you did a very great job in this video. It was very accurate and well researched, probably the most informative video on RUclips.
i've tracked carriers, they go much faster than 35. The ship i was on couldn't cruise with carriers because we weren't fast enough, lol, not even close.
How was it on the Ford? I’ve always wanted to see that beauty in person!
@@xjones2087 uhm... classified info much? then again it's peacetime, so most of the ships doesn't get put through it's paces... aka a hidden sword up their ass crack and ready to rip.
@@xjones2087 "35" was just the disclosed speed...which that in itself is crazy!
@@spencercarruth9706 Amazing! Not quite as cool as the DDG1000 series or the LCS class, but it just needs to get the kinks out! Haha.
I also like the way they can provide emergency water, power, medical aid, search and rescue, etc., to areas devastated by natural disasters.
Or devastate un natural areas lol
@@StoneCoolds that if nuclear reactor blow up
Other countries: has one or two carriers.
U.S.A: *dominance intensifies*
Champagne davy it’s literally 3 percent of our budget
KingBar -X out of five!
Should put more money into nasa
Us has over 3 trillion us dollar debts lol biggest debt in the world lol
Moocus14 we’re still the only country to land humans on the moon, and we have plans to go back by 2024 with progress going well.
All that while have the biggest military in the world.
No other country has landed humans on the moon yet, even though they had 50 years to do so. So yeah
For your end of video question, my thoughts on what I know about the doors are:
If the statement is false, with current supplied information we can't correctly infer the safety of either door.
Logically the information that the statement is false doesn't point to a specific point of the statement, just the statement as a whole. So if the statement "If this door is safe, the other door is deadly" is false, it could mean "If this door is safe, the other door is safe." Thus both doors could be safe. It could also read, "If this door is deadly, the other door is deadly", in which case both doors are deadly.
Logically I'd leave the doors alone, because deadly is an absolute that I wouldn't gamble a 50/50 on.
Good idea, I’ll bet someone wants you going and seeing what’s in the first door with the funny writing on it 🤨 I’m not sure I can infer anything other than it’s definitely a trap for you. But then, 50/50 isn’t that bad of odds really in the cosmological schemes of things, I’d say…
I reached the same conclusion: Either both doors are safe, or both are deadly. If you can safely inspect one to see if passing through will be safe or deadly (for example, tossing a frog through), you'll know the state of the other.
@@danielhale1 was that a reference to the witch's house? cause if it was, props to you
@@スーパーカーのタイヤ I forget the name of the show, but it was indeed a reference to an episode I saw years ago. They're confronted with two doors and two frogs as guardians, one always lies and the other always tells the truth. One door leads to safety, the other to death. The guy has had it up to here, so he grabs a frog and tosses it through a door, causing it to burst into flames. He slams the door and says "welp, it wasn't that one!".
@@danielhale1 Actually, you can't say that with confidence.
The sign states that "If door A is safe, door B is deadly"
Assuming that is true, there are two options for door A.
Option 1: Door A is safe, therefore Door B is deadly
Option 2: Door A is deadly, and we therefore know nothing about Door B because the sign only provides information on the situation if Door A is Safe.
Based on that, if we know the sign is False, then we can say
Option 1: Door A is Safe and Door B is safe.
Option 2: Door A is Deadly and we still no nothing about door B.
If you must choose a door in this case, choose Door B as in any situation where Door A is Safe, Door B is also safe, but there are cases where Door b is safe and Door A is not.
Hey all! I hope you’re having a great holiday season.
I just started an Instagram account in order to connect with the youths. It has pictures of me and stuff so get ready for that. I’ll probably post a picture of a plane on it later today. Just make sure to follow me there: instagram.com/Sam.from.wendover
I almost felt young when I read "connect with the youth" then I remembered that... Sam, we're of the same age. I think we're still considered young by most of the world. Anyway, you got a new follower.
you said that only 19 aircraft carriers are able to launch fixed wing aircraft, but I would rephrase that to 19 that are currently able to support CTOL-only aircraft.
By this method we would consider VTOL-supporting carriers like amphibious transport ships that can carry F35 and V22.
I dindnt know Rwanda existed
Door 2 is safe and door 1 is deadly
I love the economy of small planes video
0:55 A wild UK carrier appears 🤔
I noticed that, he may have just forgot about them since they're not really in use yet. Gonna be a good few years until the British carriers become fully operational and useable in a war
@@mrcaboosevg6089 No, Britain has a AC current war ready, there's two more being made projected to be ready '20.
It appears at 2:56
a_slime that confused me too
@@Fermonos1 The aircraft carrier itself is but as far as i know there's barely any planes to put on it, currently being tested with F35's but even then there's only about half of the planned capacity of the carrier and the training for the pilots is still ongoing.
Floating cities! Hell yes!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
Did Dr.doofenshmirtz make these lol
I had been onboard the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) for 2 years. One day, walking through the hanger bay from stern to aft, there was another sailor walking aft to stern. I stopped and said, "David?" It was a guy that I grew up with. I asked how long he had been on the FID and he said "a year." I saw him once and never saw him again. Because of our ratings and where we worked and lived, we never got to see each other again. During the time I was onboard, there were murders, suicides, thefts, drug dealing, and all sorts of crime. Like any other city, it wasn't immune to crime. Onboard there is the MAA (Master's at Arms), the ship's police. Sometimes Marines, but mostly Navy -- all carrying a 45 on their hip.
I see you comment on all military videos
With guns. A floating city with guns
This really reminds me of the Battleships game I sometimes used to play as a child. I've always never liked the aircraft carriers because they're the largest and probably easiest to spot. It also felt pretty bad when someone else sunk it. Thanks for the great video.
I love how no one actually comments about what the creator wants you to comment on.
probably most people click off at the start of the sponsor ad
We don't know anything about the doors safe passage if the sign is wrong.
What if the deadlyness of the doors can be switched and the sign is there just for the occasion?
@@cookiecookie1411 > If the first one is deadly, the sign cannot be considered "false" since you don't address what happens if it is deadly.
This is terrible logic. It could still be false, even though it's not addressed. Unknown =! false. Therefore, the only thing we know is that it can't be 1.safe 2.deadly.
@@Co1010z Exactly. If the first door is safe, the second door is also safe. If the first door is deadly, nothing is known about the 2nd door. Also, we have no information about rather or not the first door is safe or deadly.
However, the options on the quiz are:
1. Both doors are safe
2. The first door is safe; the second door is deadly
3. The first door is deadly, the second door is safe
4. Both doors are deadly
I'm not so impressed with Brilliant.org if this is a legitimate sample question.
That guy at 7:50 was pulling some moves
That is the top side PO, he is putting the plane in tension.
Davari02 Gaming but he’s doing it *in style* (^.^)
*Salt Bae has joined the chat*
Pelh24 f
It's necessary to communicate what he's doing, it's too loud for words.
"Each carrier actually has a mailing address just like any building in the US."
That's *one* address that doesn't need to worry about porch pirates!
but they have other pirates to worry about LOL
*laughs in Somali*
other sailors will steal your stuff believe me
Aircraft Carriers now have the Ring Doorbell at each gangplank
i dont know, China is pretty bold about stealing tech and secrets from the US military, I wouldnt be surprised if they sent spies to steal the Beats By Dre some sailor ordered.
I lived on one for 5 yrs 97-02. Was able to launch off of and land on it once in the C2 plane this video talked about. Was great experience in my younger days.
Humanity: *Makes Aircraft Carriers*
US: *ILL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK*
We are a force to be reckoned with.
Shane , America is the guy who you made fun of for being bad at a game , then they got better than you and are also loaded
@@eighteen1741 Modern age Rome.
@Jason Stark crack done toppled your mind 😂😂
@Jason Stark Say that when the US is not the top economy in the world with businesses in every country in the world save for North Korea and military presence in nearly all countries as well.
In the USA we have so many aircraft carriers we made one into a museum in San Diego
And one here in New York City, the USS Intrepid
Yeah, I actually see it from the Roosevelt every day. Love being stationed down in San Diego, gorgeous area.
...and one in Charleston (Yorktown), and one in Texas (Lexington).
tspencer227
Hornet (Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area)
I just went to the Intrepid in NYC last week, great museum!
I heard every time a US Aircraft Carrier gets destroyed, the US makes 3 more.
Just ask Japan.
“Cut of one head 14 more will take its place” - Some Admiral probably
basically what japan sees during ww2:
Japan: so..ok..The only Remaining aircraft carrier they have is USS Enterprise and it sank
Japan: wait..what do you mean she survive
Japan: wait... Saratoga is back?
Japan: Wait..what do you mean Enterprise have Steam catapults and newer aircrafts
Japan: WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY HAVE NEW CLASS CALLED ESSEX CLASS
Japan: *WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY CREATED 32 ESSEX CLASS CARRIERS???!!!*
Currently, 1 is waiting to enter service, 2 are being constructed, and 1 more has been ordered.
WTF Im blown away that people can buy things online and have it shipped to them on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER. That is awesome!
Italy have two carriers. Didn't expect that
They're made of spaghetti
Well almost the entire country is coast so it makes sense
That’s in case the captain beaches one while trying to impress a girl.
@@mmckenzie9367 Great reference, well played
Mind you, they're just enormous floating lasagnas with giant pizza slices as aircraft
Left unanswered: why Thailand feels it needs an aircraft carrier.
Because all the cool kids have them.
Because China
Beacuse of the heated situation in the West Philippine Sea. China is building massive military bases on islands of the Philippines, which is by the way supposed to be illegal. However our president keeps telling us that it is a friendly matter which is most of us Filipinos think that it's not. Seriously though I would rather allow U.S. bases on our islands or waters than having those military based from China which imposes great threat in our freedom.
True bruh 😂😂😂
because Thailand likes to show off
Anybody that has played civilization knows how badass they are.
A super sonic DF26 missile (东风-26) would reduce these carriers to scrap in seconds! Currently the US has NO defense against these missiles!
@@uwanttono4012 That's. . . why we have guided missile carriers, and destroyers escorting carriers.
@@uwanttono4012 1) That's what they're designed to do. Predict where the missile is going to be, and then launch missiles there. The AA missile doesn't have to go into orbit, so no matter how fast the ballistic missile is, there will always be time to react.
2) Give me a reasonable scenario where China manages to successfully launch a nuclear attack on the United States and doest get at least detected and nuked into oblivion in return.
@@dullen2810 It's the hypersonic speed of the DF-26 that currently makes it impossible to intercept with present technology even though this technology is constantly improving. Why should I engage with you re your 2nd question? I have no interest in promoting one side over another. I am merely stating facts.
@@uwanttono4012 American Aircraft missiles travel at mach 4.0
From someone that served on the USS George Washington CVN-73, good job with this video! Very well done. One nit pick, that top speed is what is declassified. They're faster than that ;)
Kerry Collier
What did you guys do back then when you where working
Any funny things you can share
Kerry Collier omg that’s worse than being forced to mop the flight deck 😂where do you guys come up with this stuff Like making us ask the CO for the keys to the jet 😭
@@KevinJCoburn I was there from 97 to 2000. I started in V-2 in Air Department but became an AG and ended up in OA.
Ahead flank 151. Set the high speed lineup....
yea cus 35mph made no sense with the distances he says it can travel over the days. def faster
"you can order amazon on an aircraft carrier"
*order amazon prime two day shipping
I had Amazon prime and I ordered stuffs while I was on deployment back in 2016. Took me about a month or two to get them lol
yeah becaus it had to get cheeked
And door to door.
d1v1nel2ight Were there porch pirates?
yes mess with USA the one or even more might loom at your shores.
Imagine needing a ramp to launch aircraft
This post was made by flat deck gang
Ethan Magdaleno Imagine Only Launching Light Aircrafts
This Post Was Made By The Catapult Gang
@@eggman8053 Imagine using the inferior catapult which can't even launch a 90 kg projectile 300 meters.
This post was made by trebuchet gang.
Imagine Using A Airbase On Land
This Post Was Made By The Aircraft Carrier Gang
Gonna change my CoD clan tag (cringey, huh?) to FLDG (fl - flat d- deck g- gang) on like, some old one or something. Maybe original Black Ops (I prefer BO2 sadly)
We in the biz call them poverty ramps
This video did not mention that whenever an American aircraft carrier and its strike group shows up, the song "America fuck yeah" is suddenly heard playing in the background.
Rumour has it when they move into third world countries you can distinctly hear fortunate son playing in the distance
I'm a welder for these things... let me tell you what, the tight spaces? Living nightmare. I have nothing but respect for the men and women who serve on those behemoths.
well they can't leave even if they wanted to, its a big decision
@@DaftPunkSkittle Sounds like the Hotel California!
Lol are you from Newport News shipyard ?
im in trade school for welding does this job pay well? if you don't mind me asking
@@youreright4723 I'm at Newport News Shipbuilding. I'm a pipewelder on 2nd shift.
When a boat has more residents than my town...
That's a SMALL town
Indeed.
Where are your towns?
How far is the nearest city?!
280,000 here in CA.
The nearest "city" is an hour drive away and still only has 9,985
280,000 is alot of people? LOL. Coming from NYC
Carriers are pretty much modern starships. Giant vessels with smaller craft to defend it. Takes thousands of people to operate. Crosses relatively enormous distances extremely far from civilisation. It plays that exact same role
Greg Specht run by convicts
Star Trek : water wars
@@NCRF510 With torpedoes AND railguns
what do you think starships are based off of?
Don't you think that, maybe, fictional spaceships are based on real world navy ships?
8:54 I love how even when Americans are on the bridge of an aircraft carrier they're still wearing their baseball caps.
That's because they're on their " on-duty " statues.
Because they are being recorded
Ball caps or covers are part of the Navy's working uniform. When a carrier is at sea, the cap is considered as a foreign object debris (FOD) that could ruin a jet engine so they aren't allowed on the flight deck. They also aren't required anywhere else except on the bridge where they are mandatory just for entry. As a flight deck guy that sometimes had to go on the bridge, I would have to make a long trip to my locker to get a cap and then make a long trip up to the bridge.
@@michaelmappin4425 why didn’t you put your cap in a pocket or something. Seems like a lot of work to walk to your bunk just to get your hat
@@MrJimheerenflight deck guys would normally never need a ball cap at sea. In fact, they are considered FOD (foreign object debris) around aircraft. We look forward to getting underway and locking that cap up for the entire time. It's only to get a working over the side chit or a crunch report signed that we would ever go up there.
"Red shirts do all the handling and mounting of ammunition."
*_HMMM_*
They also increase the ammo storage capacity of the ship.
Each red shirt can fit up to 300 rounds in their chests.
@@Lorath333 Like, they eat the rounds?
Tom S Someone didn’t get the joke.
Huh
Don’t get confused by the color codes. Those vehicles contains lots of Souls, Human Being, Our or Your Family and that is important than anything.
So, how do you expect that, makers of any kind of vehicle like that will tell you the truth?
*A Small Swedish Submarine Entered The Chat*
But the US didn't notice.
Swedish submarine wasn’t the only one. But they like to erase things from history. Same thing with their radar invisible planes. French were like “yeah we can see them. But we won’t tell anyone. Fix it.”
@@sn4tx Serbia was like, hey look, a US stealth plane. Let's shoot it down. Oh, we did!
*a small Swedish submarine has left the chat after sinking the comments*
@@sn4tx nice baiting but you're wrong. If anything you said was true, France wouldn't be striving to build a better stealth craft than the F35. Everybody wants to undermine the United States Navy with these cherry-picked scenarios that simply would not be replicated in actual combat conditions.
Here you're talking about a submarine that has to hunt and kill an aircraft carrier. Where do you start? All of a sudden you realize right away how silly the "lol American carrier got sunk by diesel sub in wargame" sounds. The Swedish submarine had predetermined information of where the carrier would be operating, knew the composition of the fleet, and had the luxury of having time to prepare for the attack. In reality, you have to take about a hundred more factors into the equation to complete a kill chain on an American carrier with any weapon platform.
The hardest thing in naval warfare is locating the enemy vessels. Even with all of our innovations in technology, it's still not possible to precisely track enemy fleets everywhere around the world. And since the Swedish submarine is diesel, there is very little chance it will find the carrier before it needs to refuel and resupply. In reality, though, the United States would simply use its speed and range to avoid any sort of sneaking submarine into the range of the carrier.
But let's say for instance the submarine does find the carrier, however unlikely, it still needs to avoid detection. Even if the carrier is traveling at its slowest pace, it's still too fast for the diesel submarine to catch it. Cavitation happens for even the best and stealthiest submarines at 5-10 knots, with the exception being the United States Seawolf-class submarine with somewhere around 15-20 knots of speed before it begins to cavitate. The point is that even if the diesel submarine finds the carrier, the odds of it getting into a position to attack are slim as the carrier can outrun it even at a slow pace. And if the Diesel sub does attempt to travel above 5 knots, it will likely be detected by surface vessels or the opposing submarine and be hunted down within the hour.
Next, you have to assume your weapons are going to hit the target. The diesel submarine might avoid detection, but the torpedo will be detected as soon as it's in the water. At this point, surface vessels will have launched decoys to throw the torpedo of course, mess with its tracker, and anything else to screw up the kill. However, these decoys are not very reliable, and will most likely be ignored by the on-board tracker. All in all the torpedo has about a 50/50 chance of a hit, assuming the weapon doesn't fail in-transit and was aimed properly.
There are simply too many factors in a real-world scenario to really be concerned about a single diesel submarine. It would be a different story if there were dozens of them infested the ocean, but the whole "Swedish Submarine OP" is the dumbest excuse to undermine the United States Navy to date.
It's a lot more complicated than just "lol get a stealthy submarine lol"
7:46 that was hilarious and made my day. that leg kick though...
i was looking for this comment
He’s got moves
You spotted an airbender.
I've been looking for this comment
One of my high school teachers was a freshly new commissioned Lt. from the naval academy that served on the Enterprise during Vietnam. He always talked about how young he was and was in charge of up to 1000 sailors in the boiler rooms on the carrier.
His navy sea stories were always the best!
*My answer to the question is:*
There are four possible combinations
of deadly/save doors:
1=safe & 2=safe (sign is false)
1=safe & 2=deadly (sign is true)
1=deadly & 2=safe (sign is unknow/indeterminate, in other words: neither true nor false)
1=deadly & 2=deadly (sign is unknow/indeterminate/neither true nor false)
The sign is false, only when *both doors are safe.*
However, the question can be interpreted in multiple ways (like Swiffah and others explain below).
(note 11:20, the original question on Brilliant explicitly states "There are two doors before you that are _either_ safe _or_ deadly")
comp sci?
Brilliant should specify what kind of conditional they mean. If it's a material conditional, then @Æ is right: A->B is false iff A true and B false. If it's something else (e.g. a counterfactual or indicative conditional) then the answer would be different.
That's brilliant.
Thank you for this, I was stuck!
@@Swiffah145 Yeah, this was my line of thinking. You have two indeterminate states, the sign can be false, but since it describes a safe door, if door 1 is deadly, it's impossible to determine the state of door 2.
Australians just swim
They used to have the melbourne
Baha nah we don’t do shit
Wait don't you strayas have 2 helicopter carriers
Nah man, they ride crocodiles with Kookaburras shotgun.
@@mtf_nine_tailed_fox385 we do - but someone put the wrong fuel in them & buggered the engines from memory & they were grounded for around 12 months - cost a billion to replace them 'em - pretty sure they back up now though..
World: How many Aircraft carriers do you have?
USA: *YES*
@@n.m.8802 57 in '72 if I remember correctly.
@@AurumFaber Don't think it was quite that high, as all of the WWII era "jeep carriers" were long since retired and there never were all THAT many LHA-class ships.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 I just reviewed my encyclopedia. I did not have it at the time that I posted my reply. It compares major navies at the time. It says;
*US* : 742,000 personal, *56 carriers* , 37 cruisers, 694 destroyers, 260 landing craft, 207 submarines, 137 conventional, 70 nuclear.
Russia; 500,000 personal, 0 carriers, 20 cruisers, 210 destroyers, 230 landing craft, 380 submarines, 340 conventional, 40 nuclear.
*(Including warships not on active duty)* It doesn't give any more information on these specific navies than I have given.
The encyclopedia list it's source as: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1966-1967
This is page 67 of the *N* book.
@@AurumFaber 56 carriers in the mid-1960s sounds about right - pretty much all of the Essex/Ticonderoga class that lived through WW II, many of the Forestall class (not sure if they all were in service yet, there were 2 built AFTER Enterprise), I think Big E was in service by then, and some of the "jeep" carriers were retained for a while.
I was a Navy Photographer on board the USS Nimitz from 1979 to 1982... Got to see a lot of Europe, The Middle East and the Ocean..lol
The sign doesn't just simply say "This door is safe, the other door is deadly" so that you can use logical equations to get the answer. It is a condition, the sign says "IF this door is safe...". When we negate that sign, we're negating only the condition, which means that there's no correlation between the two doors that we know of. The sign doesn't actually tell us anything about the status of the two doors and therefore we have no way of knowing whether either of them is safe. When a conditional sentence is false, it's the same as not having a sentence in the first place. Basically, the problem has no solution. Of course it could also be that the question is simply badly formulated, but in that case, the mistake speaks volumes about the people who made it.
actually it does have correlation between the 2 doors , its just "conditional" but yeah dosen't tell you much about the doors except you need to open door 1 if you must open A door.
@@Casual_spectator I don't understand. All I see is that option 2 is not possible. 1,3,4 all seems possible. Lets say both doors are safe. The sign which says if door 1 is safe, then door 2 must be deadly will be false, since in this situation, door 1 is safe, while door 2 is safe as well. (meaning the sign was a lie/false) So option 1 satisfies the requirement of the sign being false as well.
For option 3 and 4, the sign does not specify what should happen if the door is deadly, so if the sign is false, option 3 and 4 can still happen, as there are no restrictions about what must happen if the door is deadly. All that is specified by the fact that the sign is false is that if door 1 is safe, then door 2 cannot be deadly, as that would make the sign true, which cannot happen. The sign being false does not say anything about what must happen if door 1 is deadly. (e.g if I say that ball A is green, and I am wrong, then that just means that ball A is not green, and me being wrong does not have any implications about the colour of ball B.)
I don't get what you are saying about the sign being true and false at the same time. If the sign is false, then options 1, 3, and 4, can all apply.
@@Casual_spectator I'm guessing you're probably still confused, let me simplify it
Your friend tells you the cupcake is in the cupboard
Your friend is lying
What does this tell you about the cupcake?
1: The cupcake is not there
2: It's impossible to know
Option 1 seems to be the obvious choice, if he's lying about the cupcake being there then it must be not there, this works in 0 or 1 type thinking but not in the real world where Option 2 is the correct choice, hence the cupcake can only be half there, 3/4 there, 1/4 there, in any of those situations EXCEPT for the cupcake being there, your friend would still be lying and therefore any of those situations work and therefore you really can't know for sure.
Example 2:
Your tenant says they have paid the rent
They're lying
Does this mean they have not paid the rent?
Again, no, because they could have always paid some of the rent in which case they technically paid the rent just not all of it, and they technically haven't paid the rent because they didn't pay all of it, the statement they made is still a lie in either case, it does not make it "true and false" at the same time, it makes it purely false, just like saying "i did not go to the park" does not make "i went outside" false as well.
Of course in code, something like
boolean ifWindowOpen = True;
if (ifWindowOpen) {//some code}
will always be true, but this problem is not like a boolean value, it is more like if the below statement tested True:
if (x
@@DeadDinosaur The sign doesn't say "this door is safe" so your cupcake example is not analogous. If the door is safe the other is deadly, which is false, therefor the truth is if one is safe the other must be safe. The answer to the question is the doors are paired, if one is safe the other is safe, if one is deadly the other is deadly.
@@Malevolantgoat The right door being safe is also a possibility because the sign says "if THIS door is safe", it tells you nothing about the other door, if the right door is safe, the left door can be safe or deadly, you have no way of knowing. it does not say "if the door is safe the other is deadly", it says "if THIS door is safe" and there is no sign on the other door to imply that it says the same thing. The sign being false means: "if THIS door is NOT safe, the other door is NOT deadly" which means that if the left door is deadly, the other one is safe, which means that the right door being safe and the left door being deadly is a possibility as well, the only possibility that's not possible is the possibility the sign describes, which is "if THIS door is safe, the other one is deadly" which means if the left door is safe, the right one is deadly, which is the only possibility that can not be true.
Your explanation would be correct if the sign said "if ONE door is safe, the other is deadly", in that case any possibility where the two doors are in differing states would be wrong.
"Hey girl, I work in the US Navy"
"Wow"
"Yeah, I work on an aircraft carrier"
"Oh cool, what do you do?"
"I'm a pilot"
"No way, so what do you fly? Fighter jets, helicopters?"
"Nah, I fly in the fighter pilots mail in a small propellor plane"
"............"
At least you're not the guy putting a smiley face on a cake.
Rather work as that than at a dead end office job
I mean that’s still pretty cool ngl
Why would you downplay anyone serving so you have a country to receive your mail in. Obviously youre very insecure if you had to Hey girl that youre anything
@@soulassassin0g hey it's not that bad of a job.
"How many carriers do you want to have?"
US Navy: "Yes"
hmmm, i dont want that many of em, eh make it 20
This moment u realize since ww2 the americans build nearly 100 aircraft carriers soo yeah
I’ll take your entire stock
Still a far cry from World War 2 when nations had dozens of aircraft carriers each
Completely unnecessary
I served on the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) - '70-'74. Was a radioman.
Thanks for your service! I served USS Midway CVA-43 '71'. AK3
Thank you for your service.
One of the main logistical challenges of operating the Queen Elizabeth carriers is of course maintaining the beer stocks in the onboard pub. If the beer runs out...back to port (get it?).
It's not the beer that's important, its the tea.
Do they have Supermarkets on board ?
Topfelya Yes.
They typically have 2 "Ship's Stores" that sell hygene and toiletries, to snacks and cameras
Yes they do kind of.
Thank you !
Also called a comissary
"redshirts do all the handling of cargo and ammunition"...of course they do.
Max Aggropop lol
Blue shirts do the Irish fascism!
Star Trek stock characters. lol.
Max Aggropop I was a gunners mate on the USS Ranger, CVA-61 for two years. I handled a shitload of ordinance. FifthDivision was responsible for storing ordinance in bomb magazines. We also moved it from the magazines to the second deck so the Airedales could assemble the bombs, fuses and fins to the flight deck. I did NOT wear a red shirt.
@@sudochop that's probably where star trek got it from
"We are equipped to deal with the US millitary"
Japan: "No no no, we have seen this, we attacked a few boats, they dropped the sun on us TWICE
The true facts
wow copying the russian badger i see
@@pexton317 what vid?
The US rules the waves like its father before her
There was also a portuguese submarine (barracuda) in 1983 during an exercise called "locked gate 83" wich was able to get under an american aircraft carrier (Eisenhower) that was passing by. The american ship was going to the mediterranean to replace another american aircraft carrier and so being alies, the portuguese commander thougt it was a good idea to stop the exercise and follow the strike group without telling them in order to prevent any soviet attacks. It turned out he was able to get under the ship without getting identified. The portuguese convetional sub was unable to keep the speed of the strike group tho and so when dettaching from the group it came to the surface and transmitted that they had launched all their torpedoes. The american bridge was concerned but they understood it was a joke. They ended up praising the portuguese comander and asking for it's recordings in order to study why had they been unable to detect it.
we have launched photon torpedoes, would be more hilarious
Calling a phalanx system a "machine gun" is a bit of an understatement.
@Bill Bo Haggins LOL...that's gold.
R
They probably meant death machine
@Bill Bo Haggins q
@Bill Bo Haggins Phalanx is for pussies....Put on your big boy pants - Take a Phalanx up scale it to 30mm rounds and you get GOALKEEPER. ruclips.net/video/nY6nm-6eCzM/видео.html
well there's also about 10 .50cal's mounts around a carrier too so those help for point defense against things like helo's and small boats
USA carriers in Hollywood movies :- fighting alien ships
USA carriers in reality :- sailing arround globe
Sailors on the deck chanting ' what do we do with the drunken sailor '
Despite the USN being competely dry. Save for ports of call, the crew and officers are not allowed to drink on the ship.
HAY HAY AND UP SHE RISES
@@peterson7082 Generally true, but there have been rare exceptions usually involving long Indian Ocean deployments.
@Iskandar Ibrahim Oh, like Saddam tried to steal ALL OF KUWAIT?
Or North Korea tried to steal South Korea?
Among other examples of thefts the US has spent our own resources and lives PREVENTING?
@Iskandar Ibrahim are you just angry that we destroyed a lot of your property? thats understandable, but you also forget we bought all of those resources :)
Thank you so much for showcasing the mighty COD! It is definite the best naval aircraft ever made. You got one thing wrong tho. We base on land, mostly, fly out to the boat, and then fly back to land for the night. That alleviates maintenance, berthing, space, etc needed for two more planes onboard. Plus, we operate better when we’re there on land to coordinate the cargo. And it’s 4 less meat-eaters to worry about onboard. Trust me on that one. Thanks again!
02:48
“What they can’t do is carry enough food”
> Bob’s Burgers in background
We had pilots get us McDonalds while in the Persian Gulf.
@@passionofthewook Awesome 😎
Next video: *Aircraft Carriers on Land: How Military Bases Work*
7:46 made me laugh so hard and I don’t even know why
Super Saiyan!
He is the last airbender.
Will Macca me when i’m home alone dancing in my room
That’s the damn Green Power Ranger
7:47
‘If this door is safe, the other door is deadly.’ Assuming that this is false, that means that if door 1 is safe, so is door 2. However if door 1 is deadly, door 2 is unaffected, and can be either safe or deadly. This means that there are 3 outcomes, both doors are safe, door 1 is deadly and door 2 is safe, or door 1 and door 2 are deadly. Door 1 has a 1/3 chance of being safe while door 2 has a 2/3 chance, meaning that door 2 has a higher chance of being safe than door 1.
While I agree on the possibilities, the probabilities are not necessarily true. We have no information about probabilities. So you are ASSUMING uniform distribution of the 4 base combinations of doors.
winning a naval wargames against the US must've felt like the rebels destroying the death star.
Reynard Nathaniel Most of the developed grown-up nation’s have just as skilled militaries as the US. They simply lack the gargantuan resources. Wargames between the US/UK/France and Germany for example are not nearly as one-sided as you might think. Far from it.
Nah it’s pretty balanced. The us just has a lot of resources. But if we’re talking resources even China has it.
@@gogobrasil7185 eh... china? i give it a 50/50 chance of superiority and 70/30 chance of total bullcrap that will sink their navy like their plastic produces
AsHalt the crap they produce comes from their civil industries, which mass produce for the entire world. Different from their military which not only has a lot more manpower, is very important for keeping the stability in their government.
That's what the Americans said to the Japanese because they produced low quality stuff before they got wrecked on the early part of world war 2. Don't underestimate.
@7:47 when u see your crush and you try to act normal
I was looking for this comment hahaha
Lmao
HAHAHHAHA
top ninja shit to launch planes
LMAO true
Alright, I think that I'm able to clarify the sign problem at the end...
It states "If the sign is false, what's true about the doors?" but that is exactly the problem with this quiz question. It says the sign is false, not that the conditional statement evaluates to false. If the sign is false we don't have enough information to answer any questions about the states of both doors.
However, if the conditional statement evaluates to false, then all the sudden we know the exact states of the doors. A conditional statement is false if its hypothesis is true and its conclusion is false so door 1 must be safe and door 2 cannot be deadly, so it is also safe.
I have a question for brilliant.org:
If the quiz question is poorly worded, it will lead to great understanding of deductive reasoning.
If this sentence is false, what's true about the quiz?
◯ The quiz is enlightening.
◯ The quiz is less than helpful.
◯ It's the suckzorz.
Hey you really don't know anything about Brilliant, don't you? X)
i thought so.. but the sign being false would suggest the opposite is true. if #1 is not safe.. then #2 is not deadly. so #2 it is
The problem is that the sign says that IF (the first door is safe), then(result). There is no condition for if the door is deadly and there is no guarantee that the door is safe. The only answer that can be ruled out is the second one because we know that the statement that is on the sign is false. The first answer is possible, but so are 3 and 4 since the sign makes no suggestion of what could be true if the first door is deadly. #3 and #4 could both be true regardless of the sign being correct or not.
Its a dumb question. It honestly doesn't give me much faith in Brilliant.
I'm confused what you mean by the difference between the sign being false and the conditional statement on the sign evaluating to false? Aren't both those equivalent to saying "it is not true that 1 is safe implies 2 is deadly?"
@@Jop_pop It's kind of a weird way of thinking about it to most people, but the sign is not the same thing as the condition on the sign. So it's like asking, is the sign and whoever put it up full of shit, or is the condition on the sign false?
Fine, I'll answer your sponsor question. Let A be "1st door is safe" and B "2nd door is safe". Then (A ⇒ ¬B) ⇔ (¬A ∨ ¬B) ⇔ ¬(A ∧ B) ⇔ A ⊼ B (i.e. NAND, not both A and B). Assuming the logical structure of the plate can be trusted and only its truth value is in question, this means we have the following cases: If the statement is true, then both doors cannot be safe, in which cases the first door is safe ans second is deadly. If the statement is false, i.e. A ∧ B is true, then both are safe. In all cases, the first door is always a safe bet.
nice analysis and solution of the problem.
@@yardenm15 Thanks, but I actually think it's flawed. I might have mixed up some conjunction there when I gave this task to my students, and when we analyzed it by covering all different cases if they made sense, I think we got a differet result.
why the hell do i keep seeing these coments
If you're confused by the logic problem, don't worry, so was I. It's a bad example for someone who hasn't ever seen formal logic. In Logic, the "if A then B" statement is defined in such a way that it can only be false if condition A is true and condition B is false. A good example would be that of a warranty. Let's say you buy warranty for your phone that says "IF your phone breaks for any reason (condition A), THEN we will replace it for free (condition B)." It can only be a false statement if your phone breaks and they don't replace it for free. If your phone never breaks, then you will never know if the warranty would have been honored (i.e. the statement cannot be proved false).
The other confusing part about these types of problems is that they could walk and in and replace your phone without you requesting it, but it doesn't mean the phone was broken.
@@EstrellaViajeViajero As bizarre as that would be, the warranty statement would still be true, because the IF condition never occurred (i.e. condition A is false). You can't complain about the company not honoring their warranty if the phone never breaks. The warranty says nothing about what they will do if it never breaks.
Regarding the two doors problem, the we are told "IF door 1 is safe, THEN door two is deadly." That statement can only be false if door 1 is safe but door 2 is safe as well. If door one is deadly, the statement is not provably false (because the IF condition is not met) and therefore would be true, according to the rules of formal logic.
The example in video is a pretty good example of the logical nature of the material conditional. Your example obscures matters, since the statement you introduce is really a subjunctive conditional pretending to be a material conditional. As a subjunctive conditional, it is not properly explicated as a material conditional, but must be understood as a modal claim.
@@ClockCutter You're speaking as someone familiar with the subject, not thinking about how the problem would sound to a novice. It's not a good way to get someone interested in the subject. It's confusing to a novice because using common sense (not formal logic) tells us that knowing the sign is false tells us nothing about whether or not door 1 is safe or deadly. Only when we apply the arbitrary rule that, within formal logic, such a statement is TRUE if the initial condition is false, can we deduce the correct answer.
@@chadwickthezulu its kind of annoying that the rules of the game are not explained at the start but you can figure it out using common sense I did it just was a little confusing like reading legal documents its like a different language or someone with a bad accent. sorry about grammar am typing on a remote.
My dad was a flight surgeon on the USS Saratoga in the mid-80s, when she was launching bombing runs on Qaddafi’s Libya- he probably had to treat half a dozen personnel whose legs were ripped clean off by those catapults. The potential energy in those things is tremendous.
Great video btw
lol, americans are so incompetent that they hurt themselves in war
vitorgas1 lol it gave my dad something to do
All while undergoing a double sex change! Well done to him/her :)
@@g00rb4u the "she" refers to the ship
@@vitorgas1 So True..... LOL
7:48 that guy has some moves.
bboy for sure
Lmao bruh😂
I THOUGHT SO 2 DOG!! LMFAO
2:48 I love that there is Bobs Burgers playing on the TV in the mess hall! Gotta love the Navy 😂
"Power Projection"
You mean scaring the piss out of Iran
Boy, this comment aged like milk
Dylan Shramko basically the same things
One of those things could arguably topple the country's army
Actually no. The thing about aircraft carriers is they are very vulnerable in narrow waters - there is no way any carrier is going through the Straits of Hommuz, which are so narrow that the Iranians could hole it with 105mm field artillery, let alone serious antishipping stuff. The USAF, not the USN, is Iran's headache.
@@kenoliver8913 CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln was literally in the Strait of Hormuz a couple of weeks ago, we've been in the Persian Gulf before.
Good luck to Iran if they even attempt to shoot at a USN Aircraft Carrier.
I absolutely love the graphics u provide in all your documentaries. So informative and top scale. Keep going with this quality.
The guy on 7:46 is satisfying for me. Idk why but that moves tho
(I know thats their job but i simply love it)
haha fyi they sped that up a bit. We do that a bit slower and more controlled than it showed... was funny though!
The V-2 topside petty officer gives visual reference to the yellow shirt director to hook up the aircraft to the catapult for launch.
"China, Thailand, India, Russia, and France each have one, Italy has two, and the US has eleven "
Hey that's not fair let's devide them equally
And funny thing, the India and China got theirs from our Russia, cuz we just sold em. Truly the greatest ditch in our gov. No money for maintainence ? Off you go. We're lucky to keep Kuznetsov around.
@@SasNolan you can sell other countries and still have one
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA FUCKING 'MERICA USA USA USA
@@Liam_Daly meinkraft
When I was a kid, I took swimming lessons in an indoor pool located right next to a harbour and one day I went to the pool and looked out the window and saw an aircraft carrier parked in the harbour and I was just blown away
Update: So I just discovered the carrier I saw a kid was actually the USS Boxer which isn’t actually an aircraft carrier. She’s a Wasp-class Amphibious assault ship.
That strike group... it feels familiar
ITS THE BATTLESHIP GAME LAYOUT
That profile pic is CREEPY
But battleship has battleships
Conspicuously not mentioned: the absolutely obscene operating costs for just _one_ of these behemoths.
It would only take money equal to 1/4 our yearly defense budget to lift every single American above the poverty line.
@@Jesse__H handouts for a year only? Then what happens next year? Create a another layer of handout culture?
@@chrishall2594 not a hand out, a hand up for people down on their luck.
Bloated US defense budget. Makes me wanna barf so hard. 🤢🤢
That’s the price you pay for defense. The shepherd with the most lambs attracts the most wolves.
The door question is, essentially, one of sentential logic. "If this door is safe, then the other door is deadly" is a normal conditional of for "If p, then q" where p is the sentence "This door is safe" and q "the other door is deadly".
The informal semantics of sentential logic tells us that a conditional will be true so long as either the antecedent (p) is false OR the consequent (q) true. Therefore, the only way for a conditional to be false is for p to be true and q to also be false. Since we know the statement on the first door is false, we therefore also know that its antecedent is true and its consequent false. That is to say, "This door (door 1) is safe, and the other door (door 2) is *not* deadly". However, since a door being simply not deadly is not exactly the same as it being safe, since the former doesn't necessarily preclude any bodily harm just fatal harm, I think the unambiguously "correct" decision would be to take door #1, the door the sign is on.
In context of the entire question it is presupposed that doors are either safe or deadly by necessity. Considering the reasoning you initially provided, door 2 cannot be deadly. Therefore, given there are no more than two options for the state of a door, door 2 is also safe. It is also to be noted that the states of both doors were questioned (as opposed to the most optimal choice for mitigating harm).
@@mr.winter538 Only if we agree to subscribe to the paradigm that allows for statements to be vacuously true. And also if we agree that the language is well-defined, of course. It is not a universal axiom that a false premise in a conditional statement always yields a vacuously true statement.
I would not suppose that people who post deadly signs on doors also subscribe to the same paradigm, and therefore I would not enter either one.
@@supershluffy Does the statement „There are two doors in front of you that are either safe or deadly” not imply the paradigm that allows for statements to be vacuously true? Considering the initially provided logic, we can all agree that the door cannot be deadly. This suggests the door can only either be safe or neither safe nor deadly. Since the door being neither safe nor deadly contradicts the dichotomous nature of the possibility of the states of each door that has been presupposed by the statement provided above, I would assume the door can only be safe. You are of course right in that we have to assume that all language is well-defined, however since we can neither test nor influence this from the perspective of the writers of the sign, I would argue this is a fair assumption to make. Lastly it is of course the best option to enter neither of the doors, since we have no reason to assume the writers of the sign were genuine, and can’t exclude the possibility of human error or false assumptions from either us or the writer.
@@mr.winter538 No, it does not imply that. For the simplest proof, we can just suppose that both doors lead to the same room of death. Therefore, even though the door on the left is deadly (i.e, even though the premise of the conditional is false), the entire sign statement is still false. Meaning that in this case, the sign does not have vacuous truth.
Further, let us suppose that the doors are disjoint, neither state being dependent or connected upon the other. Also let us suppose that a door can be safe or deadly, but not both, and not neither. Then, let us suppose that the door on the right is in fact safe, while the door on the left is in fact deadly. And then someone puts up the sign. In this situation, some people might say the sign is false (edit: I'm one of them, maybe you are too), since even if the left room were made safe, the right room would be unaffected and would not become deadly. So we have the situation where the left room is deadly (the premise is false), but the sign statement is still false. In this case too, the sign does not have vacuous truth.
Thus, we have the sign statement "if LS then DR" (SL = safe left, DR = deadly right)
In the first case, we had LS false and DR true. But there was no vacuous truth.
In the second case, we had LS false and DR false. Also with no vacuous truth.
@@supershluffy To be perfectly honest I am slightly confused. Conditional statements can only be false if the premise is correct and the conclusion is false. Therefor I do not understand how such a statement could be false when the premise is false. In this example the sign makes no statement for when the left door is deadly. However since you appear to know this subject better than I do I doubt that you would make such a mistake. I either overlooked something crucial to your point or you forgot an important part of your argument. Could you please elaborate on this further?
Served on 5
USS Enterprise CVN65
USS Harry S. Truman CVN75
USS Kitty Hawk CV63
USS George Washington CVN73
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN69
Aircraft Carriers are the class of the sea. Go Navy!
Can I follow u on Instagram sir
Eric Hall, I served on only one, the USS Ranger CV61. What an experience. Go Navy!
Thank you for your self-sacrificing service sir!!!! None of you get the recognition you deserve, except the high officers and pilots. I applaud all those doing the "minor jobs," you are truly the backbone of the Navy!!!!
Thank you for your service brother!
Marine here, I surely did appreciate my time on a carrier! :)
The U.S.S. Ranger CV-61 and the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk CV-63, Go Navy!!
USA: Oh boy, look at how close North Korea have put their country next to our 3 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The nerve! The balls!
(hits table)
- This is *clearly* an act of hostility.
"the South China Sea - an area in which China is attempting to assert control, much to the US's displeasure". The outrage of those Chinese attempting to assert control in their own sea. That's for the USA to do.
@@wazdude101 The problem is that China *doesn't* own it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea
@@fireblossom9618 That's the point. The U.S. Navy freely sails in the South China Sea because it's international waters. Massive amounts of trade flow through those waters and China is trying to seize control of it. All the U.S. Navy wants is free passage.... Just with a big middle finger because it's the carriers.
@@MyCrispLettuce "All the US Navy wants is free passage...." lol talk about being naive
@@fireblossom9618 two of our important allies are, and they wouldn't be able to keep China at bay by themselves
Hey random person scrolling down the comments..
Happy New Year, and all the best in 2019 :)
fuck you biitch (:
@@jwpiranesi You kiss your mother with that mouth?!
@@Vivi_Strike said the Nick Fury
Happy New Year to you too. You are from Guelph Ontario? Like, the city that had a statue of a naked family and half the city had a collective freak-out?
Thanks!
In school to work on the reactors on a carrier/nuclear sub now. School is tough, but the more you learn about this stuff the cooler it gets!
All I have to say is mail IS crucial mail. Especially when you’ve been at see forever and your family sends you care packages
I used to work for a company with GSA contract and it wasn't uncommon for us to ship to a carrier.
I sometimes wonder how amazon has changed this mailing situation. They must have some bundling practices for shipments, but the number of packages being shipped to a carrier has to have increased massively since online shopping was a thing.
US: We have the most powerful aircraft carriers
Nick Fury: hold my beer
You mean most
I'm a Emo Furry Nick Fury basically part of the United States.
avatar1o1234 yeah he is actually.
Man..Nick is the servent of us military.. ! So whats the big deal in that...
Jake 85086 most advanced and most powerful aircraft carriers belong to the US.
I was on a Aircraft Carrier 1976, i enjoy it. It was hard Work, but i do it again. Retired Navy Veteran.
Ex-Ranger sailor, from a couple years later.
Which carrier were you on?
@@bricefleckenstein9666 1968-1970 CVA CVS 38, loved the sea and like Murphy would do it again.
5:29 " ...like the one at London City Airport in London..."
*Man, the man is killing us, man*
And yes, THIS is how I react to a Department of Redundancy Department moment.
PRESS THE BOMB
RLL nation: *builds Toyota corolla carrier*
kingsofserbiangameplay 162 learn how to spell corolla
@@pooman03, dats mi gramr
Someone's gotta deploy the fleet of AE86's.
@@Crlarl deja vu
i've been on this place before
you mean a Cargo ship from Japan?