Logical Reasoning: Become A Better Thinker

Подписаться 730 тыс.

Просмотров 38 тыс.

50% 1

Logical thinking is also known as analytical reasoning, critical thinking or abstract thinking. It is an important trait, especially among developers in the software development industry. Without the logic, they would not understand how the software works, nor would they produce a clean code.

Опубликовано:

5 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 28

@bappysani Год назад

This is one of the legendary videos about "why people should learn programming and critical thinking to improve themselves in every aspect!"

@kevinlenyatsa3648 2 года назад

Just as I was planning on stopping my overthinking

@zendrox.von-laixer9192 Год назад

Just try to differentiate when you are thinking logically and when you are literally just imagining shit

@Ryoma09 10 месяцев назад

Why'd you clicked on this video then?

@Silverbullet60h 6 месяцев назад

3l@@zendrox.von-laixer9192 exactly

@apoplied 6 месяцев назад

You fool

@raskolnikov7034 Месяц назад

@@zendrox.von-laixer9192 Exactly

@sairithvickgummadala2688 Год назад

You've just earned a subscriber, Sir.

@ApprendreSansNecessite 2 года назад

Habit and flow are the greatest enemies of logical reasoning.

@JulieParker-j7q 23 дня назад

You explain things in such a logical and simple way.

@Syllogist 2 года назад

Algebraic calculation of your polysyllogism (2:37): x - rockets, y - poles, z - trams, v - ropes, w - tents 1. А: All rockets are poles (xy) 2. I: Some poles are trams (yz+yz’) 3. I: Some trams are ropes (zv+zv’) 4. А: All ropes are tents (vw) - - - Calculation Part1: ((xy)*(yz+yz’))/Y = (xyz+xyz’)/Y = xz+xz’ = x(z+z’) - - - INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION 1: Some rockets are poles [and some rockets are NOT-poles] - - - Calculation Part2: (xz+xz’)*(zv+zv’)/Z = (xzv+xzv’)/Z = xv+xv’ = x(v+v’) - - - INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION 2: Some rockets are ropes [and some rockets are NOT-ropes] - - - Calculation Part3: ((xv+xv’)*vw)/V = (xvw)/V = xw = wx - - - 5. A: There is tents which are rockets (wx) [so as « There is rockets which are tents» (xw)] - TOTAL VALID CONCLUSION. You’s variants of conclusion: 1 «Some tents are trams» (wz+wz’) - FALSE (It’s NOT TRUE! :-) 2 «Some ropes are rockets» (vx+vx’) - FALSE 3 «Some trams are rockets» (zx+zx’) - FALSE 4 «Some poles are rockets» (yx+yx’) - FALSE (It’s NOT TRUE! :-) I'm sorry, but the truth is more expensive :-)

@avsting2249 Год назад

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

@EpicGameJunkies Год назад

If all rockets are poles, it means that a subset of the poles are rockets, which means that some rockets are trams, since some poles are trams. If some trams are ropes, then some of those trams are trams that are rockets and all of the trams that are ropes are also tents. There is no restriction for overlap in the given sentences. Every rope is a tent, so some tents are ropes and therefor some of those are trams of which some are poles, since some poles are trams. … too tired to go on, but who is to say that the possibility of overlap is not given?

@Syllogist Год назад

@@EpicGameJunkies :-))) Any syllogism and poly-syllogism (with the correct description of judgments) is easy to calculate algebraically, without inventing some ridiculous variants of conclusions. You can see «SYLLOGISM «SOCRATES» + ALGEBRAIC CALCULATION / Correct syllogisms for children and academics - 3»: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w1Lm4OCoMdU.html :-) More details: 1) Расчёт силлогизмов модусов ААА, AAI (All-All…) /РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ - 1 / Сalculation of syllogisms of modes AAA, AAI (All-All...) / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC - 1 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NMDlodgZYfc.html 2) 09-02. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-2 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-2: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9-aWMfCIgk4.html 3) 09-03. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-3 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E0-41sQwqjY.html 4) 09-04. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов EIx, IEx, EOx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-4 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes EIx, IEx, EOx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-4: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9EaQ1O0puho.html

@Ou8y2k2 2 года назад

Incomplete; We need explanations of both analogies and abductive reasoning.

@YanT141 2 месяца назад

Keep up the schedule!

@andrewparle9183 2 года назад

Sorry, conclusion 4 is false, because the set of rockets can be empty. "All" does not imply existence. Conclusion 1 is true because "some" implies existence.

@sassyqueen9739 11 месяцев назад

Can you elaborate more on that?

@andrewparle9183 10 месяцев назад

@@sassyqueen9739 Here are some examples to illustrate my point. "All unicorns are blue" is equivalent to the statement that "IF X is a unicorn, then X is blue." It does not carry the logical implication that any unicorns exist, it asserts that all unicorns which do exist are blue. If no unicorns exist, then that statement is true. "Some unicorns are blue" on the contrary is equivalent to the statement that "There exists at least one blue unicorn". If there are no unicorns then that statement is false.

@Some_ArabGuy 4 месяца назад

The statement can neither be confirmed as true or false with the given information All rockets are poles means every instance of a rocket is also an instance of a pole The conclusion "some poles are rockets" would be true if there exists at least one instance of a pole that is a rocket Given the information We know every rocket is a pole We don't have information that specifies the existence of rockets beyond the statement that if there were rockets, they would be poles, you are correct in saying that the statement "all rockets are polls" doesn't confirm the existence of rockets Because we know all rockets are poles, but we don't know if any poles are rockets specifically (the existence of rockets isn't confirmed or denied by the statements given), we cannot definitively conclude "some poles are rockets" based on the provided information So, the conclusion "some poles are rockets" cannot be determined to be true based on the given statements. We would need more specific information about the existence of rockets to make that conclusion

@andrewparle9183 3 месяца назад

@@Some_ArabGuy Technically I should have said "valid" and "invalid" rather than "true" or "false". Valid means the conclusion logically follows from the premises; if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Invalid means that the conclusion does not follow; if the premises are true, then the conclusion may be either true or false - you can't tell.