11:37, "for all y: girl(y) -> taller(x,y)" can be true irrespective of whether y is girl or not. The whole statement doesn't particularly speak boys are taller than girls. So, why option D is correct?
In gate 2010 question sir can we have this approach like : - we can assume double negation and then second negation take this negation inside it before all quantifiers so for all converted to some so it converted into : - negation of some person x can fool every person all the time OR no person can fool everyone all the time so option (B)
I think last question answer should be "No one can fool some person at some time" that is option D. This is the same question solved in ACE Academy book. Would you like to comment on this please ?
I think that B and D are equivalent statements. The counter example in the video that disprove D, that there is someone that can fool someone at sometime, does not contradict the statement that noperson can fool someone at sometime, the fooled person and time can be different in both statements so it's not a contradiction and both statements are correct.
Sir, i also thought option D would be correct. First you said to remember "some person at some time" for the EyEt. Now, ~F(x, y, t) means "x cannot fool y at time t". So, AxEyEt(~F(x, y, t) would mean "everyone cannot fool someone at some time" or "No one can fool someone at some time". Maybe i didn't understand this.
This is a property ∀x∃y∃t(¬F(x,y,t)) => ¬∃x∀y∀t(F(x,y,t)) - DeMorgan's Law This is nothing but, => There does not exists someone who can fool everyone all the time => No one can fool everyone all the time option B @17:38
Sir you tell me one thing in first question if the ornaments are neither of gold nor of silver then also d option returns true which is wrong........plsss explain it pleSse
yes, it will be true but here we only said that if they are of gold or silver they need to be precious but if they are not then they could be precious or not. get it or not?
![THE TOYS x NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pPa1d5cC8M4/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow!! You compelled me to login to like this video.
I wish i had seen this earlier.
Thank you sir, looking for more videos on Gate lectures, please upload as soon as possible. :)
nice explanation..
Thanks a lot....
Good job. Very clear
Kya baat hai, bhut shi....
Nicely explained.
11:37, "for all y: girl(y) -> taller(x,y)" can be true irrespective of whether y is girl or not. The whole statement doesn't particularly speak boys are taller than girls. So, why option D is correct?
thnk u sir for ur lectures.
best explanation so far on the net...thank you
for the last question try converting the sentence in option B to FOL and check if u'd get the same thing.
option D seems to be the correct one
In gate 2010 question sir
can we have this approach like : -
we can assume double negation and then second negation
take this negation inside it before all quantifiers so for all converted to some
so it converted into : - negation of some person x can fool every person all the time
OR
no person can fool everyone all the time
so option (B)
But great Explanation....
I think last question answer should be "No one can fool some person at some time" that is option D. This is the same question solved in ACE Academy book. Would you like to comment on this please ?
I think that B and D are equivalent statements. The counter example in the video that disprove D, that there is someone that can fool someone at sometime, does not contradict the statement that noperson can fool someone at sometime, the fooled person and time can be different in both statements so it's not a contradiction and both statements are correct.
Sir, i also thought option D would be correct. First you said to remember "some person at some time" for the EyEt.
Now, ~F(x, y, t) means "x cannot fool y at time t". So, AxEyEt(~F(x, y, t) would mean "everyone cannot fool someone at some time" or "No one can fool someone at some time". Maybe i didn't understand this.
This is a property
∀x∃y∃t(¬F(x,y,t)) => ¬∃x∀y∀t(F(x,y,t)) - DeMorgan's Law
This is nothing but,
=> There does not exists someone who can fool everyone all the time
=> No one can fool everyone all the time
option B @17:38
Seems like Raju is your favourite person.....haha
Exactly Raju and rani
sir when you will upload next videos of discreate mathematics
Should we bow?
Yeah he is a king🙏🙏🙏
can anybody explain first question
i couldn't understand the gold and silver ornaments are precious part. why is it "or" operator instead of "and" ?
sir last question samjh nahiibayaa
Sir how to write - all persons that are liked by another person are kind
Sir you tell me one thing in first question if the ornaments are neither of gold nor of silver then also d option returns true which is wrong........plsss explain it pleSse
yes, it will be true but here we only said that if they are of gold or silver they need to be precious but if they are not then they could be precious or not.
get it or not?
Please Sir Made this Sentence:----->Every man is Poor than Everywoman.
sir how to write ---> some person loves no one except themselves.
someone, please help
for some x (for all y negation love(x,y) ^ love(x,x))
@@TheVoiceFinest thank you..
dear TH-cam don't recommend this video anymore my exam finished.
Kaisa gaya bro exam
@@AshutoshKumar-es8xy kuch kuch hota hai
isnt it lectures are good