11:35 I thinks the operators are wrong. The negation of p ∧ q is ¬(p ∧ q) and not ¬(p ∨ q) as stated in the video. I think the correct negation should be ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ (¬p ∨ ¬q)
Please see the updated videos at 1.3.1: ruclips.net/video/tj_98IO-lCk/видео.html ("Proving" Logical Equivalances) 1.3.2: ruclips.net/video/aXobNQArW64/видео.html (Key Logical Equivalences Including DeMorgan's Law) 1.3.3: ruclips.net/video/u5y1zte2w_4/видео.html (Constructing New Logical Equivalences) The full playlist for Discrete Math I (Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 7e) can be found at ruclips.net/p/PLl-gb0E4MII28GykmtuBXNUNoej-vY5Rz
I did the same and it is satisfiable. I am in this video because my professor posts videos from this account to study. Obviously the pandemic has made his job easier and our job harder and he gets paid from us paying the tuition.
Years later and your vides are still valid, honestly you are a life saver
11:35 I thinks the operators are wrong. The negation of p ∧ q is ¬(p ∧ q) and not ¬(p ∨ q) as stated in the video. I think the correct negation should be ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ (¬p ∨ ¬q)
Thank you so much for the easy explanation of lectures. It was so helpful for me and I appreciate your work.
Good Luck
what happened at 23:03 ?
Haha, not sure. I'll have to rerecord that slide. Thanks for letting me know!
I laughed so hard multiple times lol
Please leave that part in. It made my night
@@SawFinMath You're so real for that 😂
Please see the updated videos at
1.3.1: ruclips.net/video/tj_98IO-lCk/видео.html ("Proving" Logical Equivalances)
1.3.2: ruclips.net/video/aXobNQArW64/видео.html (Key Logical Equivalences Including DeMorgan's Law)
1.3.3: ruclips.net/video/u5y1zte2w_4/видео.html (Constructing New Logical Equivalences)
The full playlist for Discrete Math I (Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 7e) can be found at ruclips.net/p/PLl-gb0E4MII28GykmtuBXNUNoej-vY5Rz
Thank you so much for your nice and easy explanations
11:35 Should be !(P && Q) -> (!P OR !Q)
at 27:30 can't we assign p = F, ~p = T, q = F, ~q = T, r = T, ~r = F which can make the whole expression satisfiable?
15:06
You just dropped the addition sign , why?
20:55 - I think it is called Material Implication: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication_(rule_of_inference)
What's the name of the rule used at 20:59?
At 27:20 , for problem #3, wouldn't the solution be satisfied if p = T; q = T; r = F?
Never mind.
I think for no 3 if you make P = T, Q = F, R = F. it would be satisfiable
I did the same and it is satisfiable. I am in this video because my professor posts videos from this account to study. Obviously the pandemic has made his job easier and our job harder and he gets paid from us paying the tuition.
23:03 I love you😂❤️❤️❤️❤️
prof flexing she got a pool eh
I feel like you shoudlve explained the 21:00 mark better. Professor's often time assume students just know what you're talking about
Try the new series. Maybe I explained better.