Propositional Logic | Symbolic Logic Tutorial | Attic Philosophy

Подписаться 16 тыс.

Просмотров 7 тыс.

50% 1

Propositional Logic! This is the simplest logic to begin with. In this video, we cover the language of propositional logic, and work out what all the symbols mean in English. We'll move on to how to work out truth and falsity, and good and bad arguments, in the next few videos.
This is part of a series of videos introducing the basics of logic. If there’s topics you’d like covered, leave me a comment below!
The series so far:
What is Logic? • What is Logic? | Symbo...
Intro to Propositional Logic [this video]
Truth Tables [coming soon!]
Entailment [coming soon!]
Equivalence [coming soon!]
Rewriting and Normal Forms [coming soon!]
Links:
My academic philosophy page: markjago.net
My book What Truth Is: bit.ly/JagoTruth
Most of my publications are available freely here: philpapers.org/s/Mark%20Jago
Get in touch on Social media!
Instagram: / atticphilosophy
Twitter: / philosophyattic
#logic #philosophy
Music and graphics © Attic Philosophy 2020

Опубликовано:

24 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 25

@KudaIzka 3 года назад

I always enjoy watching logic videos, no matter who is teaching. Thanks for these videos.

@AtticPhilosophy 3 года назад

Glad you like them!

@craigbareet1607 2 года назад

Concise and to the point. Much appreciation from Australia.

@AtticPhilosophy 2 года назад

Thanks!

@chiyokuoni5658 3 года назад

Thx it's helping me a lot!

@AtticPhilosophy 3 года назад

No problem! Glad it helped.

@bourdieufan7433 2 месяца назад

very helpful stuff

@AtticPhilosophy 2 месяца назад

Glad it was helpful!

@jay1900 2 года назад

I am really struggling to apply the rules in this problem, can you please give me some guidance: Using the natural deduction rules, give a formal proof of: (A → [B → C]) ([A ∧ B] → C) from no premises.

@AtticPhilosophy 2 года назад

You have to prove left-to-right and then right-to-left. For the former, Assume the left, prove the right. To prove the right, assume the antecedent A&B, use what you’ve got to get to the consequent. Right-to-left is similar.

@nou-kc1ws 3 года назад

💝💝💝💝

@justincollier1042 2 года назад

Quick question: Would you need to use parentheses for (p ^ q ^ r). Either way you disambiguate it, you get the same result.

@AtticPhilosophy 2 года назад

You're right: you don't need to (because, as you say, it's the same meaning either way). Officially, p ^ q ^ r isn't a well-formed sentence, whereas ((p^q)^r) and (p^(q^r)) are. But in practise, it's fine to drop parentheses when they don't change the meaning, as in the case of p^q^r.

@justincollier1042 2 года назад

@@AtticPhilosophy Thank you!

@dancingdoungnut Год назад

@@AtticPhilosophy Does that mean that ((p^q)^r) (p^(q^r))?

@AtticPhilosophy Год назад

@@dancingdoungnut They're different but equivalent sentences - they always have the same truth-value.

@raunaqverma7905 Год назад

Is this for computer science? I got a book about natural deduction and searched it up and came here up untill this point i am not able to understand a thing . Should i complete this playlist? Reply will be appreciated 🙏🙏

@AtticPhilosophy Год назад

Yes, propositional logic & natural deduction are used & taught in theoretical computer science. You might want to skip the philosophy-focused videos.

@raunaqverma7905 Год назад

@@AtticPhilosophy thanks I saw 4 videos and now I am starting to understand a bit. Thanks.Nice Videos btw.😇

@abu5197 2 года назад

Is propositional logic a form of classical logic since a proposition is either true or false? Is this not similar to the Law of Excluded middle?

@AtticPhilosophy 2 года назад

Propositional logic is logic without quantifiers (words like every and some). It’s any kind of logic that uses ps and qs combined with connectives (like and, or) to form sentences. So propositional logic doesn’t have to be classical: there is intuitionistic propositional logic and paraconsistent propositional logic and relevant propositional logic, none of which are classical. But when you’re being introduced to propositional logic at an early stage of learning logic, it will 99% of the time be classical logic.

@abu5197 2 года назад

@@AtticPhilosophy Thanks for the quick clarification!

@billwatters4833 Год назад

Maybe it's my age but the introductory music is horrific to my old ears. It sounds like some boys in the garage banging on empty oil drums. Let's have something more conducive to quiet thinking, please. Other than that bit of mild criticism may I say that I have learned more from this site than any other channel purporting to teach philosophy.

@Lucidthinking 9 месяцев назад

Hi Mark, Thanks for your great videos. There is something that is quite confusing to me, and I hope you can help me understand. At 8:39 you wrote the sentence: p ^ (q v r) will go to the party. From the sentence we can get two obvious possible conclusions: p and q will go to the party p and r will got to the party Can we also conclude that they all will go to the party? Because if we affirm that each of them will go to the party we will still get a true sentence. If this is the case, it seems that it is not what you wanted to convey in the sentence. It seems that you meant to use exclusive or. i.e. p ^ ( q ⊕ r )

@AtticPhilosophy 9 месяцев назад

Yes, q v r allows both q,r to be true, so p&(q v r) allows all three to be true.