Appreciate Video clip! Forgive me for the intrusion, I am interested in your thoughts. Have you researched - Mackorny Clean Skin Blueprint (do a search on google)? It is a smashing one off product for eliminating your limiting beliefs minus the hard work. Ive heard some super things about it and my work colleague at very last got great success with it.
Hello, I had a question on the video at exactly 5:00. Is the sentence "I didn't pass the test" considered FALSE because there is a "didn't" in there? Or for another reason? Thank you :)
The last table: imagine A = buy (denotate as 'buy' or 'not buying') B = spending money (denotate as 'spending money' or 'not spending money') . if A then B (if buy -> then spending money). But how does the third mechanism works? Is it correct what i'm saying? . 1. if (A= buy ) then (B=spending money) | True 2. if (A= buy ) then (B=not spending money) | False 3. If (A= not buying ) then (B= spending money OR not spending money ) | True (?) 4. If (A= *not buying* ) then (B= spending money OR *not spending money* ) | True (?)
You didn't really explain why case 2 doesn't falsify the conditional. Is it just because if you didn't study hard then you could pass the test or not? I think what I find tricky is not thinking about conditionals as reflecting causation. Maybe you could have explained the difference between those and how normal speech is different from conditionals.
The best explanation of implication I've seen.
Appreciate Video clip! Forgive me for the intrusion, I am interested in your thoughts. Have you researched - Mackorny Clean Skin Blueprint (do a search on google)? It is a smashing one off product for eliminating your limiting beliefs minus the hard work. Ive heard some super things about it and my work colleague at very last got great success with it.
Thank you so so much for your series xD thanks to this I might pass the exam ^^
Great series of videos.
Hello, I had a question on the video at exactly 5:00. Is the sentence "I didn't pass the test" considered FALSE because there is a "didn't" in there? Or for another reason? Thank you :)
The last table: imagine
A = buy (denotate as 'buy' or 'not buying')
B = spending money (denotate as 'spending money' or 'not spending money')
.
if A then B (if buy -> then spending money). But how does the third mechanism works? Is it correct what i'm saying?
.
1. if (A= buy ) then (B=spending money) | True
2. if (A= buy ) then (B=not spending money) | False
3. If (A= not buying ) then (B= spending money OR not spending money ) | True (?)
4. If (A= *not buying* ) then (B= spending money OR *not spending money* ) | True (?)
Excellent work 👍👍
Good and helpful video!
What is the relation of conditionals with modus ponens? Are they equivalent? If not what is the difference?
Is Implication the same as Conditionals
The truth table is wrong. My logic textbook and the internet has a different truth table for conditionals or implications.
The truth table is correct. Did you look at the order of the columns? The last column is B and not A -> B
Thank you
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
You didn't really explain why case 2 doesn't falsify the conditional. Is it just because if you didn't study hard then you could pass the test or not?
I think what I find tricky is not thinking about conditionals as reflecting causation. Maybe you could have explained the difference between those and how normal speech is different from conditionals.
If I live in Beijing, then I live in Iceland. -> True
you sound like little finger from GOT