Great short lecture, thanks. I was inclined, on the second 'equivalence' relation example to have a = {1} and c = {the integer that is greater than 0 and less than 2}. Would this make any difference? Could, for example, a function be drawn up here? Also, I wanted to get an idea of an ordinary English interpretation of R, such as "greater than or equal too" or "belongs in the set of prime numbers with" - to try and map the logic onto more general philosophical problems.
thank you very much, I wish my teacher could learn from this kind of videos and way of teaching! A possible improvement for me it would be to keep the video only as voice-over, without interruptions between the face and the blackboards, or using clips other than the blackboards only for explaining further things. Hvaing a close-up on the face is a bit distracting.
1 St comment sir a great learning experience and now i can learn from your video s sir but one old doubt sir if non computability stops us find ing proofs then it can not be computed in Turing machine but a human brain is not a Turing machine hence we can proof the sort of problem am i correct sir
*Maybe* "a human brain is not a Turing machine"... Is just one of the disjunct (from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) so your modus ponens is uncertain.
Thanks! Non-compatibility doesn’t stop a computer finding proofs, and in fact, computers are often used to find proofs. Rather, it means that no computer or algorithm could determine all 1st order inferences. There’s then a big question as to what that means for us and whether we can do better. Any proof we’ve ever discovered could also be discovered by a suitable algorithm, but many people have the sense that we have a kind of logical ‘intuition’ which no algorithm can have.
Great short lecture, thanks. I was inclined, on the second 'equivalence' relation example to have a = {1} and c = {the integer that is greater than 0 and less than 2}. Would this make any difference? Could, for example, a function be drawn up here? Also, I wanted to get an idea of an ordinary English interpretation of R, such as "greater than or equal too" or "belongs in the set of prime numbers with" - to try and map the logic onto more general philosophical problems.
Sound like David Tennant from Doctor Who
thank you very much, I wish my teacher could learn from this kind of videos and way of teaching! A possible improvement for me it would be to keep the video only as voice-over, without interruptions between the face and the blackboards, or using clips other than the blackboards only for explaining further things. Hvaing a close-up on the face is a bit distracting.
Thanks for the feedback! Fwiw, others said "too much blackboard is boring!" You can't please everyone!
This is great stuff! That symbol for interpretation, is that a calligraphic capital "i"?
Thanks! Yes it is
1 St comment sir a great learning experience and now i can learn from your video s sir but one old doubt sir if non computability stops us find ing proofs then it can not be computed in Turing machine but a human brain is not a Turing machine hence we can proof the sort of problem am i correct sir
*Maybe* "a human brain is not a Turing machine"... Is just one of the disjunct (from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) so your modus ponens is uncertain.
@@askaone thank you sir its good to hear a reply i am not an expert in it i am just studying
Thanks! Non-compatibility doesn’t stop a computer finding proofs, and in fact, computers are often used to find proofs. Rather, it means that no computer or algorithm could determine all 1st order inferences. There’s then a big question as to what that means for us and whether we can do better. Any proof we’ve ever discovered could also be discovered by a suitable algorithm, but many people have the sense that we have a kind of logical ‘intuition’ which no algorithm can have.
@@AtticPhilosophy thankyou sir for the explanation i will analyze this