Sir, your channel is one of the treasures that I found in RU-vid. Thank you for your dedication to educate people all over the world. Always be healthy🙏
superb explanation but can you please tell me why you put implication with Universal Quantifier and Conjunction with There exist Quantifier what is the reason?
I've got some predicate logic problems that I have done. a. Each person is either a student or a staff. Allx(Student(x) or Staff(x)) b. Each lecturer teaches some courses. Allx(Lecturer(x)-->~Courses(x)) c. Some hard-working people are not boring. Somex(Hard-working(x) ^~Boring(x)) d. Hard-working people are respectable. Allx(Hard-working(x) ^ respectable(x)) e. Everyone knows some hard-working people. Allx(Knows(x) ~ Hard-working(x)) Is it possible to check if I got it correct? Any help of correcting/confirming if these are correct would be appreciated.
Thank You for a very interesting Electure! But may I ask a question. Is quantifier always a subject presented by the noun phrase or verb phrase? Or it can be anything logically suitable in the discussion?
Sir there is also one solution exist for that case, if all girls love paul so I can write all the letters of girl in capitalize (GIRLS) order, if some girls love so girl is capitalize but s is still written in lowercase (GIRLs) which represents some but not all, and if no girl love paul so all alphabets should be in lowercase (girls)
Maybe someone can clarify this for me. I'm required to take this class at my university; however, I don't see the purpose for knowing any of this. What are the real-world applications to this knowledge?
Predicate logic deals with how computers understand natural language. Simply ,if you tell your computer "I love pineapples" then using predicate logic , it will actually UNDERSTAND that you love pineapples. You see , predicate logic is a way to represent the MEANING of a sentence. So now that a computer has a way to understand basic sentences it can do various things for us. Like summarizing a huge bunch of text into a tiny paragraph(of course this is a very elaborate process which involves much more than Predicate logic). Newspaper apps on your mobile phone use the same technology. Then there is language translation , text / speech recognition and other things. To know about computational linguistics you can read a book on "Natural Language Processing". It has a very important component called semantic analysis which is involved with the actual meaning of a sentence i.e. the context of a sentence. There you will found predicate logic. Natural Language Processing -> Semantic Analysis -> Predicate logic
Thank you! Finally someone gave me a real answer! Not many people in my class know the actual purpose for taking it, lol. I'm a linguistics major, so I had a feeling it had to do with computational linguistics.
I have some problems on predicate logic 1). No guys likes Lisa 2). Every student reads some book 3). No student answers all questions. 4). John was a liberal but Jack was a socialist. Anybody pls solve it and explain, I will be very thankful for this
There are some mistakes regarding the discussion of the negative quantifier "no" starting at about 10:23. (1) You cannot just negate a variable x. Instead, the correct predicate logic representation of "no" would be "not some x (P(x))". (2) Since there is thus an existential quantifier present, the correct connective for two properties would be conjunction "and", not implication, "then."
i get to know more about quantifier, variable. but i still cannot answer few of my question. can someone help me? example of my question is "all students of this course are happy if they pass the mathematics exam".(university student).
Interpret your sentence as - If there is a person who has passed the mathematical exam, he will be happy. So you will have 2 predicates - 1. Passing mathematical exam (P(x)), 2. Being happy (H(x)). The predicate will be, For all X (P(x) ->H(x))
@@mahadeiv2458 There are 3 predicates 1. X is a student S(X) 2. X passes the Maths ExamP(X) and 3. X is Happy H(X). We can now say: For all X it holds that if X is a student and X passes the Maths exam then X is happy. The above can be put in the symbolic form as Vx[S(X).P(X)-->H(X)
Thank you for the lecture! But must say Predicate Calculus is the mess, and it isn't worth to be studied. Firstly, it is not logical in some of it aspects: a) we assume some configuration of individuals, properties, which makes our universe be narrow; b) some rules as Universal introduction or Existential eliminations have non-logical elements in it; c) the arbitrariness which is used in some proof is completely broken. I guess (a) and (b) are not needed to be explained, not about (c), so here it is: when c is arbitrary we mean by that that, let's say, if a triangle has a sum of its angles equal to 180, then all the triangles have the same sum of their angles. What about dog named Fido? If Fido loves bones, then every such dogs as Fido loves bones. Usually we are being assured the constants cannot be used to generalize them, but it is a fault. We can do this. Does a triangle have some privileges over Fido? Nope. That's an absurd, so the Predicate Calculus.
No, but the linguists have stolen some concepts from math. Math uses predicate logic as a base for most mathematical theories, because it "conserve" truth.
