Check out my new course in Propositional Logic: trevtutor.com/p/master-discrete-mathematics-propositional-logic It comes with video lectures, text lectures, practice problems, solutions, and a practice final exam!
My math lecturer is pretty good at explaining stuff but then he complicates it and I end up not understanding the material, TrevTutor literally saved my life.
I got to say I have been going to my lecture for 2 weeks now not understanding a thing !! I have watched 2 of your videos and everything is making sense 💪🏼💪🏼Keep up the amazing work . Thank you !!!!
I SEARCHED FOR SOME EXPLANATION ON TH-cam AND AFTER TWO VIDEOS LATER I WAS LIKE, NAH... I DON'T NEED A TEXT BOOK ANY MORE 🔥🔥🔥🔥 YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. KEEP IT UP
Hello! Thank you very much for the video. You explain clearly and straightforwardly. (Wish I could say the same about my lecturer...) ANYWAY. I have a question. I find it easy to prove/disprove propositions using the truth table, but what about creating equivalent statements? Say I have x=>y and I need a different expression with the same truth values. What is the fastest way of going about that using the truth table? Is there a method that works for finding any equivalent expression you need?
You explained Boolean identities in particular DeMorgan's, I'm taking discrete math but I feel like I already know all this stuff from Boolean math and logic circuits, I do get stumped with inference and how to think about that in the context of natural language.
Hi, I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but surely the truth table is built on the axiom of p or notp being true (1 being true)? It just seems like it's using a property to prove itself, or is the truth table itself built on something else I didn't catch?
Truth Tables, Logic Laws, or Rules of Inference. There are some logical requirements and metatheory that has to be met to ensure that a system can use all three interchangeably, but that isn't covered here.
I didn't understand why not P and Q isn't opposite values of P and Q. In my copybook, I noted not P and Q like 0 0 0 1 but you made it 0 1 1 1. PS: Thanks a lot for the videos. I practice it every day.
Cannot believe I spend tons of hours on the textbook and materials my teach provides but it doesn't click. I spend 10-20 minutes on a couple if your videos and everything clicks.
U r Wrong when u did (not p or not q) it Supposed to be F F F T because (p or q) is T T T F coz At least if one of them is true so it will be true {so } I think u made Mistake
Why is "Show that (p and ~p) is always false" a contradiction? Shouldn't it be "Show that (p and ~p) is always false", "Assume that (p and ~p) is always true", complete the truth table and since this results in a contradiction it must mean "(p and ~p) is always false".
![[Discrete Mathematics] Truth Tables Examples](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/luRZuSE2n-k/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Discrete Mathematics] Truth Tables Examples](/img/tr.png)
Check out my new course in Propositional Logic: trevtutor.com/p/master-discrete-mathematics-propositional-logic
It comes with video lectures, text lectures, practice problems, solutions, and a practice final exam!
My math lecturer is pretty good at explaining stuff but then he complicates it and I end up not understanding the material, TrevTutor literally saved my life.
Same here
These videos are saving me.... I really really am grateful
Same
I watched your videos and you taught me everything i didnt understand in my lecture that I attended for over 12 weeks
I got to say I have been going to my lecture for 2 weeks now not understanding a thing !! I have watched 2 of your videos and everything is making sense 💪🏼💪🏼Keep up the amazing work . Thank you !!!!
Love from the Netherlands! I've got a test tomorrow about predicate logic. Thankfully your video's are much clearer than my teacher's ones.
Always have your videos on 1.25 speed, love them! Thanks!
Thanks for the tip
I was about to drop this class until now. Thanks for this video
NO JOKE you are a true SAVIOR!!!! THANKS A LOT❤️❤️
I love you. You taught me more than what 7 weeks of university did.
Dear TrevTutor you are really helping a lot with all of your videos, thanks so much!
I cannot thank you enough for your help...
I have an exam tomorrow & I'm speed running through ur videos to pass lol
Well explained nice handwriting every thing is very clear...thanks...
Forwarded to 8:25 cos i thot he was drawing a traffic light and had to go back a bit to figure out how that happened!😂😂
WOW. explained wayyyyyyyyyyyy better than my professor. Thanks!! I have Hope for this class now
5 years omg.. tysm teacher u really helped me 😭❤️❤️❤️
I SEARCHED FOR SOME EXPLANATION ON TH-cam AND AFTER TWO VIDEOS LATER I WAS LIKE, NAH... I DON'T NEED A TEXT BOOK ANY MORE 🔥🔥🔥🔥
YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.
KEEP IT UP
I wish I could send you my tuition for this class. Your videos are infitely better than my professor moving around the book under the video projector.
100% awesome! Wish you can make more tutorial in math/CS.
Thank You Trev. Great explanation once again.
Thank you so much. all these videos are great and you explain them very well.
Thank you for the video! Very clear and precise!
You're great sir! Thank you very much! This video helps a lot! God bless!
I really understand this now, thanks
at 6:27 why is the p column 1 and 0 and not 11,00 like we normally do to truth tables?
Hello! Thank you very much for the video. You explain clearly and straightforwardly. (Wish I could say the same about my lecturer...) ANYWAY. I have a question. I find it easy to prove/disprove propositions using the truth table, but what about creating equivalent statements? Say I have x=>y and I need a different expression with the same truth values. What is the fastest way of going about that using the truth table? Is there a method that works for finding any equivalent expression you need?
You're saving my year !
i am gratefull....thnks a lot sir for uour awesome videos
This video saved me, thank you!!
This is really helpful ..thank you
You explained Boolean identities in particular DeMorgan's, I'm taking discrete math but I feel like I already know all this stuff from Boolean math and logic circuits, I do get stumped with inference and how to think about that in the context of natural language.
Hi, I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but surely the truth table is built on the axiom of p or notp being true (1 being true)? It just seems like it's using a property to prove itself, or is the truth table itself built on something else I didn't catch?
thank you so much very very helpful video
I have a little question
what are those three ways to proofing things ??
Truth Tables, Logic Laws, or Rules of Inference. There are some logical requirements and metatheory that has to be met to ensure that a system can use all three interchangeably, but that isn't covered here.
you're under rated.
So good videos for the learners.
Thank youuuuu!!!! You are very good!
I didn't understand why not P and Q isn't opposite values of P and Q. In my copybook, I noted not P and Q like 0 0 0 1 but you made it 0 1 1 1.
PS: Thanks a lot for the videos. I practice it every day.
Yeah ur right
Is There Any Video On Contingency? Thank You.
Great. Thanks
You're a god, subscribed
Man you saved my ass in this semester.
Better having a CS degree in youtube.
Seriously why can't college profs teach as nicely as this?
Can we then say *"to be or not to be"* is tautology?
i like the leason keep it up
Is implication and Conditional are both same?
6:55
To P or not to P...
That is the question.
Don't hold it .. just P
Nice this sound easy
if we have p, q, r and s....is there any other shorter way the truth tables become so big
Unfortunately not. 4 variables requires 16 rows.
¬(p ˄ q) is equal to that of (¬p ˅¬q), meaning that ¬(p ˅ q) is equal to that of (¬p ˄¬q). Is this true or not?
Yes, that's DeMorgan's Law.
Thank you, very very useful. So I can save time invoking DeMorgan's Law instead of proving it using a truth table.
5:45
to be or not to be is a tautology :P
"Any human has 2 legs or 3 legs." Stuck with this problem. Need to draw a table of logical operations, Am I watching the correct video?
3:15
Cannot believe I spend tons of hours on the textbook and materials my teach provides but it doesn't click. I spend 10-20 minutes on a couple if your videos and everything clicks.
day 1 of 3 {studying for final}
to p or not to p
U r Wrong when u did (not p or not q) it Supposed to be F F F T because (p or q) is T T T F coz At least if one of them is true so it will be true {so } I think u made Mistake
0;52
Why is "Show that (p and ~p) is always false" a contradiction? Shouldn't it be "Show that (p and ~p) is always false", "Assume that (p and ~p) is always true", complete the truth table and since this results in a contradiction it must mean "(p and ~p) is always false".
Thank u so much this video was very helpful! Subscribed
7:42