Discrete Math - 1.6.1 Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- Building a valid argument using rules of inference for propositions.
Video Chapters:
Introduction 0:00
A Valid Argument 0:07
Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens 3:08
Hypothetical Syllogism and Disjunctive Syllogism 6:01
Addition and Simplification 7:56
Conjunction and Resolution 9:39
Build a Valid Argument Using Premise 12:10
Practice with Me (Assign Propositions) 16:40
Practice with Me (Challenging) 21:45
Up Next 28:19
Textbook: Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 7e
Playlist: • Discrete Math I (Entir...
Taking this class online without a professor to explain things has been other than enjoyable. Your videos are making Discrete Math become one of my favorite subjects that I have studied thus far in my Degree. THANK YOU!!
Thanks so much!
The challenging example was exactly what I was looking for in order to understand more complicated arguments. Thank you so much, these are fun!
My only regret is not having come across your videos before.
May Jesus bless you abundantly.
I know these videos are 3 years old, but as a Brazilian Student that also goes to Discrete Math Class, this is helping me a lot. Thank you Kimberly for helping people all over the world. You are amazing!
You are a life saver and a diamond amongst the rest of most college professors! Thank you.
HOLY MOLY I JUST STUMBLED UPON AN AMAZING GEM OF A CHANNEL. THANK YOU!
I started enjoying discrete because of you!! thank you so much
This has been a HUGE help. Thank you!
I was absolutely lost with DM. This is a godsend. Thankyou for this amazing lecture!
Thank you for this! I'm studying in a good university but my teacher here is really bad. You helped me skip a 2-hour lecture and squeezed it on just a few minutes. Thank you!
Omggg I cannot even put into words how much you have helped me!!!! I was so confused about this but I tried the challenging final problem in the video by myself and GOT IT EXACTLY AND I WAS NOT EXPECTING THAT BECAUSE I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING before watching this video! All thanks to you!
So happy I could help!
Thanks for the incredible tutorial.
thousand times better than my Russian professor. why we dont get professors like you. we could save our time so easily thankyou.
this is insanely helpful, i cant express this enough. thank you sincerely for helping me pass my class
Glad it helped!
wow, this video really helped explain things much easier, thank you.
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH I REALLY COULDNT UNDERSTAND HOW WE DOING THESE THINGS AND YOU HELPED A LOT THANK YOU
Thanks for making these videos. I go to UNO and these videos are a lot easier to understand than reading the textbook or even my own professor's videos
I got my graduate degree from UNO! I had some great professors and a not-so-great one. Glad I could help!
Your video saved my day. Thanks.
Thank you, Kimberly, for your videos. I finally understood deductive thinking (going from universal to particular: particular being necessarily true when the said particular belongs to the group of the universal), premise, logical symbols etc. thanks to your videos. I also read an article on inductive and deductive thinking on Wikipedia, and inductive thinking clicked as well. The definition on Wikipedia was horrible, but I got that inductive thinking is the opposite of deductive thinking i.e. Going from the particular instance(s) to universal. I also understood that inductive conclusions can never be true but their likelihood of being true can be increased. However even a single instance to the contrary of the conclusion leads to a revision of the conclusion (ideally).
reaaaally good thank you for your efforts and time
These videos follow along with the modules of DM1 in WGU, and you are helping a ton. As the top comment stated, a class that has brought many worries has been turned to such a fun class for me.
doing the same here now at WGU😂
@@Evolution602 Same lol
Thank you so much for your great explanations. DM really starts making fun. I wish all my professors could explain Math that way !
True
Thank you!
You are so great, I hope I had you as a professor. And just a suggestion in the practice from 16:41 to 21:41, we could have also used hypothetical syllogism to prove the conclusion:) Thanks!
These are saving me for my midterm thank you
You are welcome!
thank you so much!
THANK YOU SO MUCH AGAIN I COULDNT DO IT AND I FOUND IT FEW HOURS AGO BEFORE EXAM AND I DID IT IN EXAM THANK YOU SO SO MUCH 😭❤
Just want to thank you as a student from bangladesh and being from a middle-class family I can't any tution in these courses the meme's are true youtube does help more than the university in cse thank you
Happy I could help!
Best teacher to date
Brilliant
!!!!!!!!
I am a Computer Systems Major - Upper Senior at City Tech. This slides are helping me in advance. Class is online - Spring 2022 but will be on campus once a month. I hope to get an A in MAT 2440. I will also take MAT 2540 in Fall 2020. Thank you very much for posting these videos.
Glad I could help!
Resolution:
Just remember p->q has same truth table with ~p or q
so, if ~p or r is same as p->r. Therefore we can replace p with r in p or q, which is same as r or q.
Lots of love from India
شكراً لالك جداً
دورت كثير شرح للدرس هاد بالعربي وبالانجليزي وما فهمته ، بس لما تابعت شرحك الحمدلله المعلومة وصلت وحاسة بالسعادة ..ربنا يسعدك 🙏❤❤❤❤
So glad I could help!
God bless you for actually helping me understand this shit
Well explained
It would be nice if there were more middle level sample questions about Rules of Inference.
I would like to ask on your last example, isn't the disjunctive syllabus r v s and not s suppose to give s instead or r?
At 15:56, is it ok if I did Modus Ponens first and then simplification to reach the same conclusion?
hi L
Just to make sure I got this right: An argument is the CLAIM that (p1 and p2 and ... pN) imply q. A VALID argument is an argument for that this claim holds. Is that correct?
What do you do if you have 4 variables? How can I identify the type of Inferences if there are 4 letters ex; Q,p,r ,s
Why is it modus ponens in the 3rd step of the last example?
I was confused about your last example. Why does leaving r at the end imply that p->r
The first step was q. Using the steps we arrive at r. So q implies r.
Trying to self study here. Just curious, if I have p -> q and not p. Then is the result inconclusive?
@15:38, how does she use simplification for the second one?
for the second example, can we use hypothetical syllogism? p-> not q, -q implies not r, therefore p implies r, then using modus ponens since p is true so is r?
Good day maam Kimberly!
regarding in disjunctive Syllogism,
is (( p v q ) ^ ~ p) --> q = ((p v q) ^ ~q) --> p?
Can someone explain how to get the 3rd step which takes place around 15:10?
Why can't you just write q instead of p implies q?
You have to have a reason for every step. I can't just say "q" without a logical equivalence. So I have to state the rules I am using. In this case, that is simplification and modus ponens.
I think the video unfortunately is slightly open for misinterpretation in this exact segment unless you observe quite carefully. It also took me a while to understand what was being done.
So the rule of simplification that is used was explained in general by p and q as variable names, which unfortunately also were the specific variable names of the logical statement we investigated. So lets instead explain the simplification rule by using myVar1 and myVar2: From the knowledge that myVar1 AND myVar2 is true, we can infer that myVar1 is true (and equivalently that myVar2 is true). Now to take this general simplification rule and apply it to the example, we would recognize myVar1 as p, and myVar2 as "If p then q". Now it must be since that the premise states that p AND (if p then q) is true, it also follows that both p is true, and (if p then q) is true.
If you don't have "q" as a premise. How would you solve this?
Hi Kimberly, I'm a bit confused about the topic of this video intersects with section 1.3.3 (Constructing New Logical Equivalences) . Wasn't that constructing proofs as well? thanks for all the great videos.
This is late but for any newcomers 1.3.3 dealt with making two propositions equal, while this video deals with proving that a proposition is true (a tautology)
Thank you!!! i have a small question, do we have to memorize all of the rules?
I would just keep a list handy for easy reference
Help professor,
I am precisely asking what does the definition of even numbers refers to.Or for simply,the
definitions of chairs,tables,spoons
etc refers to a class satisfying the stated property or these terms symbolise any object satisfying stated property.
I wanna ask a dumb question. Does (q v p) ^ ( h v k) -> q v p true?
Queen
👸
For the disjunction rule, you took the r.
But, according to the formula, u should take the s to be true!?
(p or q) and not q then q
you did
(p or q) and not q then p.
Are they interchangeable ??
Kinda confused rn!!
Much ove.
Love*
🤗🤗💕❤
21:52
Can we just say:
1. u→p
q→(u∧t)
∴ q→(p∧t)
2. ¬s
(p∧t)→(r∨s)
∴ (p∧t)→r
3. q→(p∧t)
(p∧t)→r
∴ q→r
7:25 kinda need clarification
Not sure what you mean.
16:35
I think I'm too stupid to understand this.
ong bro, we're cooked
Too many ads
I find that this course video is different and in a different order then my book is. Which mean's if I want to use this to learn I need to finish all 80 videos in 1 to 2 weeks lol cry
Or....compare your topic list to the topic list in the book I used. Then watch the videos in the order of your text
@@SawFinMath Thank You for answering my response. I am just saying but 1.6.1 to 1.8.2 is hard to follow. I am currently on 2.1.1
The college that I am taking is the class "Discreet Math" is know as "Discreet Structures" part of the Computer Science path and the class is called CSC 7 at Riverside City College. They use the discrete mathematics and its applications by susanna 4th.
Are u fab davis
Who came here few days before algebra exam 😭
hello can anyone help me with this one?
Premises: (¬p → ¬q),(r → p),(¬r → q) conclusion p
Sure, by contraposition law, from (¬p → ¬q) we derive (q → p).
Now from (¬r → q) and (q → p) we derive that (¬r → p) by hypothetical syllogism.
Now we know that (r → p) and (¬r → p).
The last step is the disjunction elimination rule: all we need to invoke is the law of excluded middle (r ∨ ¬r), so (p) follows.
This doesn’t make any sense
Remembering the names for those operations will definitely kill me. Hypothetical syllogwhatnow? Amazing videos nonetheless of course!
Thank u for these good lesson
I have search abt this subject in Arabic but didn't understand it , but when i see your video i got it ! thank u very much 🤍🤍🤍🤍🤍🤍🤍🤍🙏🙏🙏🙏
Glad to hear that