Logical equivalence without truth tables (Screencast 2.2.4)

[@evelynwallace25]

Thank you! I missed the class that covered this material. Thank god for the internet and kind strangers.

[@summer_serranose]

this happened to me today haha. I regret skipping school yesterday

[@headphones_guy777]

this is me XD

[@superbo9y36]

me yesterday!!!

[@astyanax905]

Clear, concise, accurate.
Good stuff. Appreciate it.

[@VALR1able]

Thank you very much for this video. It certainly helps to make this topic clearer.

[@joshuanicholls2692]

Thank you so much for this :)
Now comes the challenge of memorising tautologies and using them for my proofs.

[@therealmaveric]

Excellent video this really helped me understand what really is a simple concept.

[@SangaJanga]

thanks this helped so much! please continue doing discrete math videos!

[@user-ww3rm3mz3i]

Thanks this so well done and explained, wish you also did Modal Logic and PA

[@Vativ]

This video is poggers!

[@fastsolution]

one thing i dont understand in this video that in the conditional statement negation in only on p why you put negation on whole statement plzzz i am confused clear me thanks!

[@silastops6253]

Thanks, its clear and precise. I managed to gain an insight.

[@serenataoglucolonnello5771]

Hi, Is there a way to contact you?

[@ilhampamungkas2865]

well this is really helpfull, but what if i have, lets say 4/5 proposition. can i still practice this method or what

[@nayabtahir8454]

Thankyou so much its very helpful

[@ilsajanjua2344]

Can you help me??

[@hufflepuffsunited7827]

This was very helpful. Thanks a lot!

[@ZuhaaFatima-gw7mj]

thank you so much 😊

[@ankitgupta8797]

How to prove two given statements not to be logically equivalent ?

[@marrjoja]

Thank you Thank you very much for your explanation! ! You really helped me T_T

[@mohammedashiq2457]

P->q(~pVq)Can u prove this without using truthtable?

[@ariap9697]

thanks, it was great.

[@kevinwei667]

thank you so much

[@rashmikadeshan2710]

thank you

[@Tube-uv9fp]

Thanks alot

[@sajiiidali]

(~p(~q ᴧ r )) v ( q ᴧ r ) v ( p ᴧ r ) ↔ r plz solve this equation by laws of logic..... i m waiting ur answer

[@roohishakir183]

thanks sir g

[@CubanSauce]

Interesting. It confuses me that you can do something to one side and not to the other. Math, i tell you.

[@MrDiscussion]

actually u are not changing either of the sides, just rewrite it in a different form. It stil means the exact same thing.

[@LoLei3239]

IssaUzumakii And since the condition is that both sides are equivalent, changing one side to something else which is equivalent to itself, makes it automatically equivalent to the other side again too.

[@particlestudies2823]

thanks for nothing