_Fascinating_ is a great word to describe modal logic and the whole analytic philosophy tradition. Watching a time-lapse video of maggots devouring a mouse carcass is fascinating in much the same way.
2:37 The *truth table for the conditional* is to be read: - The vertical column (from the arrow down) lists the antecedent's options: 0=false or 1=true - The horisontal row (from the arrow right) lists the consequent's options: 0=false or 1=true Hence, in the four output values for the conditional, only one combination is 0=false, namely when the antecedent is 1=true and the consequent is 0=false.
6:02 @Kane B, you introduce C.I. Lewis' initial problems with the strings “p→(q→p)” and “~p→(p→q)”, but when you explain his modal logic, you don't seem to return to these strings, and instead you discuss the example of “□(q→p)”. Hence, we never get to see how C.I. Lewis solved those initial problems in his modal logic. Do you happen to expand on this anywhere else? =)
I believe the point is that material implication, which leads to the strings like p→(q→p), is accepted for what it is, but that the stronger notion "strict implication" defined as □(q→p), where the arrow represents material implication, is presented as a separate and better formal description of our intuitive use of the word "implies".
Why believe the material implication truth table in the first place? I don't see the logic behind. Good talk, I've been trying to understand all this for years.
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7Oqqo90x_w/mqdefault.jpg)
This is possibly necessarily possibly possibly necessarily a very good video!
_Fascinating_ is a great word to describe modal logic and the whole analytic philosophy tradition. Watching a time-lapse video of maggots devouring a mouse carcass is fascinating in much the same way.
2:37 The *truth table for the conditional* is to be read:
- The vertical column (from the arrow down) lists the antecedent's options: 0=false or 1=true
- The horisontal row (from the arrow right) lists the consequent's options: 0=false or 1=true
Hence, in the four output values for the conditional, only one combination is 0=false, namely when the antecedent is 1=true and the consequent is 0=false.
Great videos ! Thanks !
awesome videos. You rock!
Maybe the way to help it is to somehow ensure that premise is used in consequent such that reasoning is valid. I mean linear logic
Amazing video, helped me a lot.
Amazing video!
Excellent channel!
6:02 @Kane B, you introduce C.I. Lewis' initial problems with the strings “p→(q→p)” and “~p→(p→q)”, but when you explain his modal logic, you don't seem to return to these strings, and instead you discuss the example of “□(q→p)”. Hence, we never get to see how C.I. Lewis solved those initial problems in his modal logic. Do you happen to expand on this anywhere else? =)
I believe the point is that material implication, which leads to the strings like p→(q→p), is accepted for what it is, but that the stronger notion "strict implication" defined as □(q→p), where the arrow represents material implication, is presented as a separate and better formal description of our intuitive use of the word "implies".
Why believe the material implication truth table in the first place? I don't see the logic behind.
Good talk, I've been trying to understand all this for years.
I have some questions about modall logic. Anyone willing to answer?
No! :D
I forgot my questions anyway lol.
@@jamesgrey13 Performative contradiction