Your talent for teaching discrete math is a true gift to us all. You've made difficult concepts accessible for thousands, asking nothing in return. You've truly done your part in this world-thank you, you don't know how much I appreciate it :)
I've come this far in the playlist and I wanna say that your work environment of a small blackboard full of illustrative colors is very organized and easy to follow in a reassuring way. Thank you for this.
I really appreciate you going through the three different proof methods! I just started a discrete mathematics CS course and your videos are by far the best I've come across :)
paused this interesting lecture to take a moment and thank you for all the hard work you have put in. I really appreciate it Professor KIm. May God bless you.
você é realmente um anjo enviado pelos céus para me salvar, em 50 minutos de videos ensinou sobre tudo ( conjuntos na matematica discreta) que o meu professor demorou 1 trimestre para ensinar, e ainda por cima ensinou de um modo que eu consegui entender, vou salvar essa playlist para assistir ela inteira, ja estava desistindo de matematica de discreta na faculdade e deixando para ano que vem, porem depois de achar esses videos vou tentar passar com o conteudo dos videos, muito obrigado
Link to the solutions. It's not the homework, but can be somewhat useful I imagine! www.slader.com/textbook/9780073383095-discrete-mathematics-with-applications-7th-edition/
Hey prof! Hope you're doing well. Just had a clarification. I get that we have to 'prove that if a set A is a subset of a set B and the set B is a subset of the set A, then A=B. It's perfectly logical. In the first proof of Demorgans 2nd law. We went from proving (A n B)' = A' U B' . Once we did that, we proved A' U B' = (A n B)' (Basically the vice versa). But WHY ? if LHS = RHS, doesn't is automatically imply that RHS=LHS ? The 2nd part of the proof seems redundant to me. Could you please explain it when you do have some time to spare ? Edit- it makes sense if you think about it as an implication i guess.. just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. so by doing the 2nd part of the proof, we are basically saying its a biconditional which makes sense to me.
We didn't prove that the left side equation equaled the right side. We proved that an element in one set is in the other set. Then we had to do the same in reverse to show that if any element is in one set, then it is in the other set.
Your talent for teaching discrete math is a true gift to us all. You've made difficult concepts accessible for thousands, asking nothing in return. You've truly done your part in this world-thank you, you don't know how much I appreciate it :)
Thank you for the kind words!
I've come this far in the playlist and I wanna say that your work environment of a small blackboard full of illustrative colors is very organized and easy to follow in a reassuring way. Thank you for this.
Thank you so much 😀
I'm struggling with this subject. Finding your video series is like finding fresh air after capsizing in a storm. This is incredibly helpful.
You don't know how much your content helps me, thank youuu :)
I really appreciate you going through the three different proof methods! I just started a discrete mathematics CS course and your videos are by far the best I've come across :)
paused this interesting lecture to take a moment and thank you for all the hard work you have put in. I really appreciate it Professor KIm. May God bless you.
i am gonna pass this treasure to all my friends in college, THANK YOU!
commenting this on every video so u get more reach because these are really helpful and it means way too much to me.
você é realmente um anjo enviado pelos céus para me salvar, em 50 minutos de videos ensinou sobre tudo ( conjuntos na matematica discreta) que o meu professor demorou 1 trimestre para ensinar, e ainda por cima ensinou de um modo que eu consegui entender, vou salvar essa playlist para assistir ela inteira, ja estava desistindo de matematica de discreta na faculdade e deixando para ano que vem, porem depois de achar esses videos vou tentar passar com o conteudo dos videos, muito obrigado
Well I'm so glad you reconsidered giving up! Best of luck to you!
Thank you Kimberly. Best quality
Thank you Professor Brehm, this is an amazing lecture. I am really learning discrete math because you make so easy to follow.
writing my DM exam next week, thank you for making my life easier❤
Please madame IS it the same Standard WE must follow to find other proof in sets?
thank you so much you don't know how much you have helped me, thank you ❤❤
I'm so glad!
You're actually amazing, thanks a lot!!
Is there anyway for us internet people to get access to the homework?
Was thinking about this too
Link to the solutions. It's not the homework, but can be somewhat useful I imagine!
www.slader.com/textbook/9780073383095-discrete-mathematics-with-applications-7th-edition/
You want the questions I assign my students?
@@SawFinMath yes please
@@nolimits9420 1.1: P.12-15(12, 28, 36)
1.2: P.22(2, 8, 16, 40)
1.3: P.34-36(4, 8, 22, 26 - for 22/26 use logical equivalences)
1.4: P.53-54(8, 10, 18, 24)
1.5: P.64-67(6, 10, 20, 28)
1.6: P.78-80(6, 12, 28)
1.7: P.91(8, 14, 24)
1.8: P.108(6, 8)
2.1: P.125-126(4, 16, 32ab, 42)
2.2: P.136(4, 8, 20, 30)
2.3: P.153-154(12-13, 22, 40)
2.4: P.168-169(8, 16adf, 20, 32)
2.6: P.184-185(4 find sum and product by hand, 12, 26)
3.1: P.202-203(4, 6, 36, 40, bonus 56)
4.1: P.244-245(6, 10abc, 14abc, 28, 30)
4.2: P.255(2ac, 4ac, 5ab, 6ab, 8, 10ab, 22ab)
4.3: 272-274(24ab, 26ab, 32bdf, 40c) - Proofs to look at: 13, 19, 51
4.4: P.284(2, 4, 6)
5.1: P.329-330(4, 10, 18, 20) - Proofs to look at: 5, 7, 15, 21
5.2: P.341(3)
5.3: P.357-358(2cd, 4bc, 8bd, 24ab)
5.4: P.370-371(7, 8, 9, 23)
6.1: P.396-397(2, 8, 14, 22a-f, 28, 36, 44)
6.3: P.413-414(2, 6, 8, 20, 27)
6.4: P.421(2b, 4, 8)
7.1: P.451(3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 21, 25ab, 27ab, 35)
7.2: P.466-467(1, 5, 9, 19)
8.1:P.510(3, 7, 8, 11, 20)
8.5: P.557-558(2, 4, 8, 12, 16)
9.1: P.581-582(1bdef, 4ab, 30, 34)
9.3: P.596(2ab, 4a, 8, 10, 14, 22, 26)
9.5: P.615-616(2, 3, 16, 42-explain "no's"
10.1: P.650(1, 3, 7, 19)
10.2: P.665(2, 5, 8, 10 (only for 8), 22)
11.1: P. 755(2, 4)
Hey prof! Hope you're doing well. Just had a clarification.
I get that we have to 'prove that if a set A is a subset of a set B and the set B is a subset of the set A, then A=B. It's perfectly logical.
In the first proof of Demorgans 2nd law. We went from proving (A n B)' = A' U B' . Once we did that, we proved A' U B' = (A n B)' (Basically the vice versa).
But WHY ? if LHS = RHS, doesn't is automatically imply that RHS=LHS ? The 2nd part of the proof seems redundant to me. Could you please explain it when you do have some time to spare ?
Edit- it makes sense if you think about it as an implication i guess.. just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. so by doing the 2nd part of the proof, we are basically saying its a biconditional which makes sense to me.
We didn't prove that the left side equation equaled the right side. We proved that an element in one set is in the other set. Then we had to do the same in reverse to show that if any element is in one set, then it is in the other set.
Thank you alot. Helped me alot. Keep go please.
i didn't really understand the table part
It's funny that the easiest proof method is just going back to where we started :)
Thank you.
u saved me thx a lot I love u
Thank you
I LOVE YOU
thank u
You're welcome!
i love you
i hate de morgan sooooo muuuuuchhhhh
Is anyone here from North South University?
From BRACU ✅