you are a fucking legend. You helped me so much i was strugling to remember the if then table now i will not forget it. Thanks my g

i knew something like this was similiar to domain and range fungtion. except the x variable where change to Truth varioable.

Helpful🔥

Seems like not studying makes us satisfied anyway

Thanks, now I remember.

omg this is so helpful, i learn faster this wayyy

wow , you are brilliant, thanks

WOW, You are a genius. Thanks for this so much!

I thought if p and q as a promise I promise that: if p happens then q will happen too if p happens -> q happens : True (promise is upheld) if p happens -> NOT(q happens) : False (promise is broken) if NOT(p happens) -> q happens : True (promise is upheld) if NOT(p happens) -> NOT(q happens) : True (promise is upheld) example: I promise that: if you have a dog then it is blue have dog -> color is blue : True have dog -> color is not blue : False have cat -> color is blue : True (original promise about dogs being blue is still True) have cat -> color is red : True (cats being red doesn't affect my promise) just because you have a cat doesn't mean my promise is broken. cause my promise is about DOGS being blue. cats got nothing to do with it.

🥰😍

Likewise it's been a challenge for me finite maths

😢gdgxsfcl❤ggd🎉hdmvl​@@marciahuell

Hvzlr

Glad it was helpful!

@@DrTrefor 9

My textbook is written by someone who just wanted to fill the book with words without going through the trouble of explaining things

What I found ungrateful, is that without the textbook, you wouldn't have come here in the first place to understand. Let's honor the textbook for being (sometimes) way too dense.

No such thing as a "visual learner"...

@@badwrong veritasium

@@badwrong you’re correct that the term “visual learner” isn’t actually a real learning “style”. That being said, I still found the visual format of this video helpful for my comprehension on this subject matter. Take care :)

@@badwrong If there's no such thing "visual learner," then define it in a new way such that it exists.

@@badwrong Not true 😅 Pun intended 😅

How is that ~p V q has nothing to do with real life implication?

​@@Juan-yj2nn yes it does its kinda hard to explain but p implies q means: First: if p is true, q must be true (p=true IMPLIES that q=true) Second: if p isn't true, p IMPLIES q is also true, no matter what q is. (Think about it: if p isnt true, it's still true that a case where p is true, q is also true) Now what is true in any case here, if p-->q is true? If we look at both rules we find that the statement is always true when q is true or when p is false This gives ~p v q Now is this a coincidence or re they logically the same in any way? Well.. using human language to describe logic is difficult because human language is vague. The words we use to describe logic (if p then q / p implies q / p AND q etc) are ways to emulate the meaning of logic to human language. If the logic is the same, it's the same, in real life, anywhere. It means the same, it is the same in any way same or form. The thing that's different is our emulation of the logic. The word AND, is the closest we'll get to the real "logical meaning". The best way to emulate in human language/think about p --> q in my opinion is like this: --> is a logical operator that evaluates the truth value of a **promise of a theory leading to a conclusion** , where p is the hypothesis and q is the conclusion. Might sound difficult but if to bring it a little closer to human language: think of it like a scientist that promises you that if p is true, then q is true. Whether his promise is held or not determines the truth value . So if p=true leads to q being true, he doesn't break the the promise. If p=true leads to q being false, he breaks his promise: his theory didnt lead to the right conclusion. If p=false (his theory doesnt work) his entire promise isn't broken. It's the PROMISE (and the promise and all the logic, in whatever way you interpret that, what represents the logic of -->). For the promise to hold, the hypothesis being true what makes the conclusion being true a necessity For the promise to hold, the conclusion being false is what makes the hypothesis being false a necessity This is the relation of --> In logic terms: For p--> q to be true: p being true, REQUIRES q to be true (it won't hold when q is false) q being false REQUIRES p to be false (it wont hold if p is true) Hmmm.. so the logic is based on 2 requirements for two situations and all other situations are true it seems. (Just like how the logic of AND is based on 1 requirement: p and q need to be true at the same time) The 2 requirements, things that need to be true at least are: p being false or q being true In other words: ~p v q

Really glad it helped, good luck in your class:)

loved this explanation

Is this considered a tautology

Thank you so much, really appreciate that!

You're very welcome!

You're so welcome!

Lol. I also noticed that

Best of luck!

My pleasure!

I m inspired by your tremendous way of delivering lecture. Stay blessed