Hi! I can't express how much your videos are helping me through my first year of Computer Science. You're easily the most helpful person on RUclips, I am very happy I found your videos on Logic and Discrete Maths!! Keep up the great work. Much love from Sweden! Xero
@@Trevtutor Hello, do you have a hint for me how to prove ~A↔ B, ~B ↔ C, ~C ↔ A ╞ λ that? I already used the Df rule but I still cannot see how to show that an absurdity follows... Help would be much appreciated... Thank you!
Conditional Elimination makes way more sense. The arrow is a Conditional, If X then Y. Therfore, if you know X is true, You eliminate the conditional arrow and conclude Y. Conditional Elimination.
Hello, just wanted to thank you for these videos. I was perplexed by the Fitch system as presented in the set text (Barwise), andfinding external, clear and basic materials about the Fitch system proved challenging. Thanks to Hurley I began to understand what deductive was about and even enjoy it, but ultimately I need to use Fitch in the exam. Thanks so much for taking the time to clearly and comprehensive explain Fitch. In part thanks to you hopefully I'll pass.
a) 1| A -> (B ^ ~C) Assumption 2| A ^ B Assumption |---------------------------- 3| A 2, ^E 4| B ^ ~C 1, 3, MP |---------------------------- 5| ~C 4, ^E
b) 1| ~B -> (D ^ E) Assumption 2| (A ^ ~B) ^ C Assumption 3| A ^ ~B 2, ^E 4| A 3, ^E 5| ~B 3, ^E 6| C 2. ^E 7| ~B ^ C 5, 6, ^I 8| D ^ E 1, 5, MP 9| D 8, ^E 10| E 8, ^E 11| E ^ D 9, 10, ^I 12| (E ^ D) ^ (~B ^ C) 7, 11, ^I
I have a test due at midnight, if by God anyone can answer these. I would do anything. This is so hard. Here’s the test: Solve the following problems and then explain in your own words, in paragraph form, why you took the steps you did to solve the problem that way (ex: why did you apply conjunction elimination to steps one and two?) (5pts each; 3pts per proof and 2pts per explanation) From the below premises, prove T (∼ P & Q) ( R → P) (∼ R → S) (S → T) 2) From the below premises, prove ∼ P (P → Q) (∼ Q v R) (∼ S → ∼ R) (∼ S → (Q & T)) ∼ T 3) From the below premises, prove P (Q → P) (∼ Q → R) ∼R 4) From the below premises, prove ∼ (T→V) (P→(Q→R)) P ((Q→R)→¬S)) ((T→V)→S
![[Logic] Proofs and Rules #2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q09VwL41ZH0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Logic] Proofs and Rules #2](/img/tr.png)
![[Logic] Predicate Logic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h5UTvdcgFHw/mqdefault.jpg)
i dont think you understand the sheer amount of people you've saved with your videos. thank you thank you thank YOU so much for this amazing channel
Hi!
I can't express how much your videos are helping me through my first year of Computer Science. You're easily the most helpful person on RUclips, I am very happy I found your videos on Logic and Discrete Maths!!
Keep up the great work.
Much love from Sweden!
Xero
+Xero Gray Thanks! That was the goal of this channel: to create the resources I would have wanted when I was taking the courses.
Fulført graden din?:) Håper alt gikk bra
@@Trevtutor Hello, do you have anything on disjunction elimination?
@@Trevtutor Hello, do you have a hint for me how to prove ~A↔ B, ~B ↔ C, ~C ↔ A ╞ λ that? I already used the Df rule but I still cannot see how to show that an absurdity follows... Help would be much appreciated... Thank you!
@@ChibiNekoKira Jeg vet ikke jeg skal se Norsk her!
My professor is a bumbling buffoon and cannot teach this to save his life. the videos are incredibly helpful. Is Zoom meeting tutoring available?
wow
Conditional Elimination makes way more sense. The arrow is a Conditional, If X then Y. Therfore, if you know X is true, You eliminate the conditional arrow and conclude Y. Conditional Elimination.
Hello, just wanted to thank you for these videos. I was perplexed by the Fitch system as presented in the set text (Barwise), andfinding external, clear and basic materials about the Fitch system proved challenging. Thanks to Hurley I began to understand what deductive was about and even enjoy it, but ultimately I need to use Fitch in the exam. Thanks so much for taking the time to clearly and comprehensive explain Fitch. In part thanks to you hopefully I'll pass.
Easily understood simple and straight to the point
Thanks for the practical illustration!
8:14 Ass. is Assm. (Assumption) shortened further. On the RUclips platform it is risks breaking their ToS
haha ass
THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH!!!!!! You just saved my math and cs class!
the amount of adds youtube puts in videos is insane
4:20 "If you have A and B you can get A and B" call me nerd, but im dying here hahahaha
I wish I woud have found this a few weeks ago but still thank youuuuu, thank you so so much
Using this rules on a set of assumptions A and concluding C is the same as saying that A entails C? If so, why? (Great lectures btw)
so a proof is basically just another formalism for proving that ((AND(set of assumptions)) --> Consequence) is a tautology, right?
Hello where is the answer for those four questions? Cheers mate
thanks for your tutorial is helped me a lot understand logic
Great video
so is modus ponens the same as biconditional elimination?
Great tutorial thank you so much!!!!!!! Have been searching the whole internet for guidance like this! Keep it up !!!
Do you have anything on disjunction elimination?
so helpful thank you!
FUCK INTRO TO LOGIC!!!! Passed the course tho 💀
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!
the answer?
Where are the answer for the last questions ?
He did say during the video that he was leaving the exercises up to the viewer. If you want, I can give you how to answer them.
a)
1| A -> (B ^ ~C) Assumption
2| A ^ B Assumption
|----------------------------
3| A 2, ^E
4| B ^ ~C 1, 3, MP
|----------------------------
5| ~C 4, ^E
b)
1| ~B -> (D ^ E) Assumption
2| (A ^ ~B) ^ C Assumption
3| A ^ ~B 2, ^E
4| A 3, ^E
5| ~B 3, ^E
6| C 2. ^E
7| ~B ^ C 5, 6, ^I
8| D ^ E 1, 5, MP
9| D 8, ^E
10| E 8, ^E
11| E ^ D 9, 10, ^I
12| (E ^ D) ^ (~B ^ C) 7, 11, ^I
c)
1| A ^ ~B Assumption
2| (A v ~C) -> D Assumption
3| A 1, ^E
4| ~B 1, ^E
5| A v ~C 3, vI
6| D 2, 5, MP
7| D ^ ~B 4, 6, ^I
d)
1| ~F ^ ~G Assumption
2| ~G -> H Assumption
3| (H ^ ~F) ~I Assumption
4| ~F 1, ^E
5| ~G 1, ^E
6| H 2, 5, MP
7| H ^ ~F 4, 6, ^I
8| ~I 3, 7, MP
9| H ^ ~I 6, 8, ^I
8:16 this class has me so gone that i found this funny 😭
Thank you so much for this video!!!!
thank you thank you thank you!
Choosing a rule of inference is a blind strategy I guess am I correct 🙏🙏
Why label the lines by letter? I,j,k? So confusing
Thank you!!!!!!!
I have a test due at midnight, if by God anyone can answer these. I would do anything. This is so hard. Here’s the test:
Solve the following problems and then explain in your own words, in paragraph form, why you took the steps you did to solve the problem that way (ex: why did you apply conjunction elimination to steps one and two?) (5pts each; 3pts per proof and 2pts per explanation)
From the below premises, prove T
(∼ P & Q)
( R → P)
(∼ R → S)
(S → T)
2) From the below premises, prove ∼ P
(P → Q)
(∼ Q v R)
(∼ S → ∼ R)
(∼ S → (Q & T))
∼ T
3) From the below premises, prove P
(Q → P)
(∼ Q → R)
∼R
4) From the below premises, prove ∼ (T→V)
(P→(Q→R))
P
((Q→R)→¬S))
((T→V)→S
rest in peace man what happened
captions? :(
im even more confused. fuck this. imma just chatgpt my whole assignment.
As a fellow logic tutor, hearing you say "conditional elimination" bothers you makes me scream x'D I'm bothered by MP!
college sucks