@0:38 Proof #1 **** @3:43 Proof #2 **** @9:15 Proof #3 **** @18:55 Proof #4 **** @21:09 Proof #5 **** @25:56 Proof #6 **** @29:44 Proof #7 **** @32:47 Proof #8 **** @33:48 Proof #9 **** @36:35 Proof #10

@kawaii_hawaii222

3 жыл бұрын

Hello thanks for your video, do you have a hint for me how to prove ~A↔ B, ~B ↔ C, ~C ↔ A ╞ λ ? I already used the Df rule but I still cannot see how to show that an absurdity follows... Help would be much appreciated... Thank you!

@13:34 "we are doing this by video, that no one will watch." Sir, you are wrong. These videos have been a treasure trove of info, and I've come back to them multiple times since you posted them. Thank you for your efforts!

fucking legend, computer science majors all over the world bow to you right now, my good sir! :)

After 6 weeks of class im finally starting to understand natural deduction because of you, thank you William!

Hey man, this video is super helpful. You explain everything very clearly and I really feel like I understand the material a lot better now.

You are a magician! I am in uni and this is the 3rd time I'm doing a logic course. No-one has been able to explain Natural deduction as clearly as you do. Thanks.

You made it all so clear for me! Thank you for doing what your doing just know its helping us struggling college students!

13:40 This will actually save me on my exam Saturday, so thank you and don't be de-motivated

William Rose, you are a certified G. Honestly would not have passed my logic course without you. Much love and respect ♥

3 years after it was released, this video is still helping a lot of students with their studies. Thank you very much William, keep up the good work 🙌🏼❤

How dare you make it look so much easier than my prof.....just....how dare you.

Thank you William, you really are incredible for taking the time to do this :)

thank you so much, truly. i have an exam on this tomorrow and i couldn't even comprehend proofs until i saw your videos. know you are helping many, thank you.

This is literally the sweetest video I have ever watched. Thank you so much. The playlist is so helpful. God bless you.

Also loved that you have so many examples that are not just very basic. Double thumbs up!

These videos just gave studying for my exams a huge boost. Thank you for your awesome work!

You made my day so much better. So clearly and so much natural to understand it your way! Now I'm not lost anymore!

This helped me so much because I wanted to write about a type theory I developed using Fitch style deduction but couldn't find any approachable resources.

dude holy shit you might've just saved me from failing logic class

You are going to be the only reason why I will pass my exam tomorrow. Thanks a lot

William, you just saved my life! Thank you so much. Greeting from the Netherlands

Thank you, William, you're a lifesaver! Very clear tutorial, nicely done Sir.

Great video! One of very few videos that explain Fitch style Natural deduction proofs really well.

i learnt things in a bad order and the first 2 minutes of your video helped me understand everything about my course and for this i thank you.

Thank you so much! You're an awesome professor. Thank you for showing this to the public! So much easier to understand now. Learning based off Forall x.

Thanks for the clear explanation. I needed to relearn this when working as a student assistant and it has been more clear than the lecturer's notes/the book.

this was rushed for me at uni and i didn't understand it i now feel way more confident on this

Thank you soso much, I've been searching for good natural deduction videos and this is the only good video I could find. You will probably save my resit on logic, so thank you so much!

You are such a great teacher, me personally love to listen to your couses bec maths is the first time not frustrating... :-) stay positive! (not corona oc)

you the man! thanks a lot, you are teaching me much more than my professor ever could!

I could never thank you enough man :') tysm!!! Keep up the great work :D! Saved me no cap.

Thank you for the clear walk-through. Very helpful 🙂

I am so appreciative of your videos. Thank you so much!

Much love for this. Thanks!

Such a great teacher!!

damn vbro i also peed in front of a queue, but I have a faint feeling that we aren't talking about the same pees and queues

The videos have been helping me a lot. Thankss! Where can I find the packet that contains all the questions?

you make it look easy my dude thank u for this

This solved my mental breakdown

You are a legend, thank you

Awesome! REALLY helpful, thank you!

thank you for the proofs! you explained it way better than my teacher did. i hope ur baby's ok

Love the video's, was curious about proof 5. I am trying to work this proof in the opposite direction, that is to say conclude p or (q and r). Any strategies about how to go about this proof, or other videos that might address this. Thanks again, and again great videos!

I'm really thankful for you, this helped me practice for my homework and everything is much easier now :) Thaaaanks ^_^

thank you, you made it so much easier

Thanks a lot for explaining this topic so easily SIR....

dear student this is your new lecturer forever, his name is William "Heaven-Sent" Rose

Great video, really helpfull!

Bless you fr

Thank you sir for the video!

Obrigado mano

thank you!

Thank you very much. Your vids helped a lot😁👍

Amazing videos!! Thank you so much, you helped a lot :))

Dude you are amazing

Ur so amazing for this

Hi, thanks for the great video! I have a question (I'm very new to this, sorry if it's a stupid question). When using proof by cases for or elimination, why is there no need to consider the case where both statements are true? For example, to proof (A or B) therefore C, why do we only need to prove A therefore C, and B therefore C, but there is no need to consider (A and B) therefore C? Is there some law or principle behind this? Thanks!!

GOAT

I'm italian, my teacher is not be able to explain this argument. could you explain me the sub-derivations part. some book to recommend or you have some links where to find exercises, I have two weeks to prepare for the exam. I'm in a hurry ahahaha. waiting for your answer your fan

@dodecahedra

3 жыл бұрын

Not sure exactly what you need, but this is free and good: slc.openlogicproject.org/

this is soooooo much easier to understand holy shit dude.

so helpful my god

Could you please share the title of the book where you took that packet of proofs, please?

If your students don't watch this, they don't know how lucky they are

You are a fucking legend man. Greetings from germany

saved my college exam 😀😀 thank you!!

Hi! thank you for uploading this video. I got a question! I'm taking a "Introduction to Logic"class in Coursera. but there, Or elimination is different with your process. for example, 1. p|q -> or elimination 1 = p (x) can't derive p without implication premises I would rather do that I can derive q from p|q using implication elimination p|q p assumption q p|q and p implication elimination 1. p|q 2. p => s 3. q => s -> or elimination 1,2,3 at the same time = s So, how p|q can be p directly?? please save me!!! is it different with Fitch system??

@dodecahedra

2 жыл бұрын

I’ve read this a few times but I can’t really understand you. Sorry. In this system “or elimination“ is just the technical name for proof by cases.

32:36 lol, that was totally unexpected. 😂

You explained this better than my university prof

@jackg2630

Жыл бұрын

I should have said my university « proof » no pun intended

On proof #5 on the fifth line you used &introduction with lines 3,4 but you only cited line 4 in your proof. Is that a mistake ? If not could someone please explain the reason behind not citing line 3 in that instance ?

@dodecahedra

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that was just a careless mistake on my part.

In proof 3 couldn't you have simply used recursions to invoke m->c and f->c in order to use a v elimination resulting in c?

@dodecahedra

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know what "used recursions" means. There are other formats out there that do things slightly differently.

@camcorl7921

2 жыл бұрын

@@dodecahedra The format we are being thought is different to the one in these videos, for example we don't have bottoms or contradictions (yet), we have rules that make up for it and go the long way around with -> intro but for the most part the approach remains the same and I must thank you for making these beautiful videos. They make the whole studying for finals business a whole lot easier by teaching me how to approach certain problems.

A ∨ B ¬¬B anyone know how this could be deduced?

Why do you use Intro and Elim instead of referring to the rules of inference

Hi😊

You should care of baby

@dodecahedra

Жыл бұрын

He's good. Just turned 3, a happy boy.