His thumbnails are really bad, the videos are really good, but unless the ‘desperate’ student sees that this video is directly solving the problem, they’re just gonna scroll past it and go click on a video that they feel ‘won’t save their time’
@@Tyrothegoat I agree. However, this thumbnail does actually stand out against the others (which is how I managed to find it after accidentally losing my search!). I clicked because of the fact it had chapters that were titled with more than one word. Kinda love thumbnail discussions, so thanks for making me think about it.
wonderful video! so clear and understandable when you say it! My professor makes this seem so much more complicated than necessary. for the american viewers the symbols are different so you'll have : ~ - not . - and v - or ) (horseshoe) - if, then (triple bar) - iff Thanks for making this video!
This is a really helpful video, thanks so much for making it. I think there is a mistake when you stick together the truth tables for the five basic logical connectives around 10:01. The third row of the first column should read F T, rather than F F.
No videos on this, but you do basically what you said: you consider just those lines where the conclusion is F, and see if any of these make all the premises T. If so, the argument is invalid. Otherwise, it's valid. Working like that can cut down on the work involved - you don't have to draw the whole table.
Ever been in a discussion and wanted to know whether (or demonstrate that) someone’s argument doesn’t work? That’s where knowing a little logic can be very useful. Maybe you’re unlikely to get truth tables out mid-conversation! We learn them in class to internalize the skill, like learning a language.
You have a mistake in your truth table which demonstrates all of the p, q connectives. You say: t-t, t-f, f-f and f-f. The problem is: f-f on the third line which should be: f-t. Cheers!
This video provides absolutely no value if you cannot relate it’s usage to a real world sentence! Don’t worry, you’re not the only one failing the viewers!
It's aimed at people taking a logic class. If you want to relate this material to a real world sentence, just replace the ps and qs with whichever real world sentences you like!
@@AtticPhilosophy I trying to find out if I need to take such a class. From your response, I guess we can all just teach ourselves. No need to pay for instruction.
How has this video not received more views? Hands down the best explanation I've seen. Thank you so much.
Thanks! You're very welcome.
His thumbnails are really bad, the videos are really good, but unless the ‘desperate’ student sees that this video is directly solving the problem, they’re just gonna scroll past it and go click on a video that they feel ‘won’t save their time’
@@Tyrothegoat I agree.
However, this thumbnail does actually stand out against the others (which is how I managed to find it after accidentally losing my search!).
I clicked because of the fact it had chapters that were titled with more than one word.
Kinda love thumbnail discussions, so thanks for making me think about it.
This is better than my prof and TA combined
I was feeling bad about thinking that my philosophy teacher is bad at teaching, but this guy has now confirmed that this is undeniably true.
wonderful video! so clear and understandable when you say it! My professor makes this seem so much more complicated than necessary. for the american viewers the symbols are different so you'll have :
~ - not
. - and
v - or
) (horseshoe) - if, then
(triple bar) - iff
Thanks for making this video!
Thanks! Yes lots of different symbols used in logic, it gets confusing!
yhea, what a video , very astonishing motivation for breaking down , u did your best thank's !
I am currently studying Formal Methods of Philosophy at Stanford U. right now and this is so helpful! Thank you! :)
Glad it helped! I had a great time visiting Stanford years and years back, such a great place!
These videos are very good. They are being very helpful. Thank you so much :D
Thanks very much, that's appreciated!
Fantastic! Thank you so much for your clear explanations.
This is a really helpful video, thanks so much for making it. I think there is a mistake when you stick together the truth tables for the five basic logical connectives around 10:01. The third row of the first column should read F T, rather than F F.
Good spot, thanks!
Incredibly well explained. Thank you!!
Thanks!
You made this so simple. Thank you.
That's the aim! Thanks for the comment
It's pretty helpful!
Do you have anything on the "direct method" where the conclusion is stipulated false and the premises true (??) - see, that why i need it ;)
No videos on this, but you do basically what you said: you consider just those lines where the conclusion is F, and see if any of these make all the premises T. If so, the argument is invalid. Otherwise, it's valid. Working like that can cut down on the work involved - you don't have to draw the whole table.
Excellent introduction! Small error at 9:29 in your summary table : second line from bottom the truth values of p and q should read F T and not F F.
Thanks! And well spotted!
You make me realize how bad my professor is at teaching logic. 😂
😍😍
So how do we apply this to every day life
Ever been in a discussion and wanted to know whether (or demonstrate that) someone’s argument doesn’t work? That’s where knowing a little logic can be very useful. Maybe you’re unlikely to get truth tables out mid-conversation! We learn them in class to internalize the skill, like learning a language.
You have a mistake in your truth table which demonstrates all of the p, q connectives. You say: t-t, t-f, f-f and f-f. The problem is: f-f on the third line which should be: f-t. Cheers!
Yes well spotted, unfortunately nothing I can do about it now!
This video provides absolutely no value if you cannot relate it’s usage to a real world sentence! Don’t worry, you’re not the only one failing the viewers!
It's aimed at people taking a logic class. If you want to relate this material to a real world sentence, just replace the ps and qs with whichever real world sentences you like!
@@AtticPhilosophy I trying to find out if I need to take such a class. From your response, I guess we can all just teach ourselves. No need to pay for instruction.
just subscribed now. The best explanation i've seen soo far!!
Thanks! Welcome on board.