Hi! Your videos are so helpful. Keep up!

Thank you so much for this video, ive been so lost with entailment but now it makes sense!!!

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Fantastic, glad it helped!

AMAZING LESSONS!!!! CONGRATULATIONS!

@AtticPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Your lessons are so helpful! I'm doing a logic course in university at the moment and you're a huge help. The lessons are always so clearly laid out and very easy to understand. An underrated philosophy channel! Keep it up, thanks so much.

@AtticPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

That's great to hear! I know how stressful logic courses can be at uni, so glad this has helped.

Very well explained.

finally I found a video that explains it perfectly. thank you for the video :)

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Thank you

Thanks , keep up the great work

@AtticPhilosophy

18 күн бұрын

Thanks! I’ll try.

20:14 my respect for you has increased so much , You have cleared my confusion 😭

@AtticPhilosophy

2 ай бұрын

Thanks! Glad it helped.

@nitishgautam5728

2 ай бұрын

​@@AtticPhilosophy There's one question , Deductive argument goes from general to specific and inductive argument from specific to general ... But will this always be the case?

Great lesson. Thanks

@AtticPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

the logic course we've all been missing. one emphasis i added for myself was that entailments rely on the validation of All propositions involved. like "premises entail conclusions" is contingent not only on specific premises, but also specific conclusions, which somehow felt unobvious after discarding the function(argument) notation in favor of "p entails c". i'm sure this is clear for many, but i felt a need to highlight this. thanks for having this exceptional course going! ps. i also wondered how "truism" relates to "tautology, logical truth and valid sentence". i assume it's just a term for their application in rhetoric.

@patrikblik5669

3 жыл бұрын

my use of the word "conclusions" remained contentious even above. they were meant to denote separately evaluated premises, not conclusions implied by the other premises as conditions. my point instead was just that they need to share a same axiology. the disambiguation at the end of the video is a sticky one.

@AtticPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I think 'truism' means something commonly understood to be true, like 'politicians lie', rather than anything to do with logic.

That's the one! Much easy to understand. Why they make everything so confusing when it's barely even explained...

@AtticPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

I have the same issue with you as I have with Agatha Christy. After I have finished one of her books I'm lost wondering which book to read next. Take your series on logic. I never did the subject at school so now in the autumnal glow of my late eighties I decided to give it a go. You have made it interesting and I'm bound to benefit largely but could you please put the videos in some sort of chronological order, please. I'd appreciate a list of titles that I could methodically work through from the start to the final video. NB Agatha presents the same problem but she isn't with us right now.

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

I'm looking to put some 'courses' together - guided playlists, eg, Logic 101, with videos following a (mostly) coherent progression. Bear with me!

Would an objection (counterexample) towards “A → B iff A ⊨ B” be something like: “If a large dog is a dog then red is a color”?

@AtticPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the suggestion! 'Red is a colour' isn't a logical truth, so in this case, A->B isn't valid and A doesn't entail B.

you are awesome

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, I try!

19:20 Okay so you’re telling me that this channel is named after the fact that he gives lectures from an attic and not from the region in Greece? Didn’t know!

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

It's a terrible pun, I know ...

How can I contact you for business enquiries

@AtticPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

DM me on Twitter (@ in the description)

So "Entailment" to "=>" is what "Triple=" is to "".

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Yes: A -> B is valid iff A entails B, and A B is valid iff A is equivalent to B.

What is about A ⇔ B |= A ∨ B. In this one value of truth of AB is true but it is false for A ∨ B. So what is the result

@AtticPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

That’s not a valid entailment, AB allows both A,B to be false, but then AvB isn’t true.

i feel like i now have a better idea of what ⊧ is, but what about A⊧B vs A⊢B? (sorry for abusing of your time but may i add the difference between the previous and A⊩B to this question?)

@AtticPhilosophy

Ай бұрын

⊧ is semantic entailment: (in every valuation/model) if A is true, then B is true. ⊢ is about proof: B can be proved/derived from A. These are standard symbols with fixed meanings. ⊩ is sometimes used to speak about a sentence being true relative to a possible world, state, situation or whatever: s ⊩ A means that A is true relative to (world/state/situation) s. (Some people also use ⊧ for this.)