[Discrete Mathematics] Truth Tables Examples
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2016
- We do some practice questions with truth tables to find logical equivalence.
LIKE AND SHARE THE VIDEO IF IT HELPED!
Visit our website: bit.ly/1zBPlvm
Subscribe on TH-cam: bit.ly/1vWiRxW
-Playlists-
Discrete Mathematics 1: • Discrete Math (Sets, L...
Discrete Mathematics 2: • Discrete Math (Countin...
-Recommended Textbooks-
Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics (Grimaldi): amzn.to/2T0iC53
Discrete Mathematics (Johnsonbaugh): amzn.to/2Hh7H41
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications (Rosen): amzn.to/3lUgrMI
Book of Proof (Hammack): amzn.to/35eEbVg
Like us on Facebook: on. 1vWwDRc
Submit your questions on Reddit: bit.ly/1GwZZrP
In this video we use truth tables to prove tautologies and contingencies.
Hello, welcome to TheTrevTutor. I'm here to help you learn your college courses in an easy, efficient manner. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe and follow me for updates. If you have any questions, leave them below. I try to answer as many questions as possible. If something isn't quite clear or needs more explanation, I can easily make additional videos to satisfy your need for knowledge and understanding.
![[Discrete Mathematics] Exclusive Or Example](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TCt8wGBEdYY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Discrete Mathematics] Exclusive Or Example](/img/tr.png)
![[Discrete Mathematics] Direct Proofs Examples](/img/n.gif)
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!
Came across some confusing terms brother Trevor: I am wondering if “proof theoretic semantics” is same as “proof theory” and “model theoretic semantics” is same as “model theory” ? Thanks!
I've just found this "classes". Soooo helpful for me to get the basics of discrete mathematics! Thank you!
I’ve been struggling so hard with this stuff but u make it look so easy omg ur brilliant
thanks very much, i never understood these stuffs in class. love you so much Trev
I wish I had a question 😂♥️ but thanks a lot for high quality teaching.
i love this playlist buh can you recommend like a site or a book where I can get more activities
helps so much great work!
Thank you man love you so much
Thanks! Very helpful
is there an easy way to solve these problems without drawing out a truth table that i should know at this point, or is it normal do make truth tables for all of these problems
Please what of word problems on this topic
3:05 You say you're simplifying. I would've thought [-(p || -q)->-p] would simplify to [(-p || q)->-p], but you say it simplifies to [(-p && q)->-p]. Can you explain why this is the case? Am I missing something?
you sir are a goat thanks so much
you have stated in a previous video, that if a p=1 and q=0 in a conditional then p--->q = 0, yet here u put a 1, im i wrong???
Where did I put a 1 for that kind of statement in the video?
3:26?
@2:30, You're reading it backwards, as [~p --> ~(pv~q)]
where ~p=1 and ~(pv~q)=0, in that case yeah, it should be "0".
It's not tho, it's: [~(pv~q) --> ~p], where where ~(pv~q)=0 and ~p=1, which yields "1".
you are an awesome person !!!!!!!
No way, someone is watching this the same time with me. Absolutely agree with you that is cool explanation
About 2:12
Guys, k->j = 1 if and only if k
[( A → B ) ∧ A] → B is a tautology
However, instead of [( A → B ) ∧ A] we can not take B, isn't it?
I mean [( A → B ) ∧ A] is not the same as B, isn't it? @03:16 to 03:23
It's logically equivalent, so yes it is the same.
Why is: 'not P' = 1 + 'not(p or not q)= 0 in the 'Conditional' not = 0?
Exactly
@@MrKB_SSJ2 same question
i found the answer its not the not p =1 + 'not(p or not q) its if 'not(p or not q) then not p meaninig values of 'not(p or not q) are comparing with not p
3:27
why is 2:31 true ? Shouldn't it be false ?
`~(p v~q)--> ~p can you explain more better cos i don't get the logic
I believe that was a mistake
2:31 Pretty sure the fourth row is supposed to be false ( 0 -> 1 )
Nope, p-->q is only false if p is true AND q is false. Look at row 2, it's identical to row 4
@@EvanGaoTV Nah, this is the problem with implication, true implies true, false implies false but false does imply true as well. However true does not imply false (If 1 is true and 0 is false).
@@HDitzzDH ah my bad, it is not identical to row 2. HOWEVER, 0-->1 is still true. The only case where the arrow is false is when 1-->0. With the whole sunscreen example, if it is sunny I will sunscreen. But, if it's not sunny, I can still wear sunscreen. I haven't broken my first promise, because I never said anything about if it ISN'T sunny
@@HDitzzDH you're thinking of biconditionality. Look at the previous video in the discrete math 1 playlist where he explains --> and how it is different from
@@EvanGaoTV If a true statements implies something is false then it is always false. I agree with GZA.
0:00
admin ... can you explain the meaning of arrow ???
Sth implies sth
how old are you
If I study Hard -- then I will pass == Satisfied with result :)
If I study Hard -- then I don't pass == not satisfied with result :(
If I don't study hard -- then I pass == F**k Yeah I am satisfied :D
I I don't study hard -- then I don't pass == F**k it, I didn't study so I am satisfied with results :)
i found this comment on another youtube video and it explains if then truth table. Hopefully this helps. If this is wrong let me know.
You are putting 1 0 on the P column but our teacher is putting 0 1 on the P column. What should I put?
i.e
P
1
0
Our teacher:
P
0
1
I have learned that these are the binary equivalent of 0 and 1 and so on. i.e binary of 0 is 0 and binary of 1 is 1. So the first column starts from 0 and so on. So we should put first 0 then 1. Why are you doing the positive?
Most disciplines that use logic will write the positive lines first. A lot of older professors in computing science will start with 0, but this is all personal preference.
Thanks,
But I going to stick to my professor method else he would not give me any number in a paper.
for biconditionals the rule u said was "when am I lying to u, so for not(p v not q) for last one its like one is true and the other is false why is it true then. Its like u didn't put sunscreen but it was sunny or vice versa, either way on one side u r lying
Because it can be not sunny and I can still put on sunscreen for fun. I'm not lying to you that if it IS sunny, I would put on sunscreen. It isn't sunny, so nothing is out of bounds for me because I never promised you anything about if it ISN'T sunny.
Oh also -->is not a biconditional, a biconditional is
is it just me or somebody else also find the truth tables to be extremely boring? not the explanation, but the topic itself for some reason
this is so bad he isnt explaining why it isnt 0 or 1