6.5 Indirect Truth Tables

[@Brandon-wo2tz]

You are a LIFESAVER!!!! I watched 10 different videos on how to do this and your version is the ONLY ONE that made any sense whatsoever. Thank you soooooo much for posting!!!!! :) :) :) :)

[@TerryTarry]

I failed the first two test but then I found you and my god you saved me. Ever since I started watching your videos everything is much more clearer. Being a visual learner like myself is hard. Learning new material just from the textbook can be a struggle. My final is in the morning I will report back with my final grade! :D Thank you Mark Thorsby!

[@Siftrtals]

+TerryTarry howd your final go?

[@ArtisticallySpoken]

4 years later and the outcome of their final is still a mystery to the world.

[@AdityaSingh-wz7oh]

How'd your final go?

[@DwayneRidgwayOfficial]

I am also curious about the final.

[@chitranshsrivastav4648]

Its been 8 years now

[@DVNSYMBOSS]

This is an amazing resource!Thank you for time and consideration! Blessings to you and your family.

[@sherrodcotton1130]

Thank you entirely for the videos, I have symbolic logic and it's difficulty has been giving me endless migraines, since I've had the class. But this made things better. Thanks again!

[@sasukenojutsu]

Really enjoyed your videos over the past semester; Thank you Professor Thorsby!

[@brittainiemooney2526]

very very helpful video, but the problem that you solved at 19:00 is actually valid, not invalid. When the atecedent is true and consequent true, the horseshoe must be true, not false. Just wanted to write this in case anyone else is watching and confused and caught the mistake like i did.

[@michaelebron1280]

Thanks, I was confused by that one.

[@Jack-ts7xd]

For anyone confused, this person is right that if the antecedent and the consequent are true then the conditional must be true. But this is not the case for this problem. Professor Thorsby made a mistake when he wrote TFT for the conclusion . The conclusion should instead read TFF. That would still make the argument invalid.

[@whitb62]

On the testing for consistency problems, the book says once you find a single line with no contradiction you're done. No need to go to new line.

[@ThisIsLyric]

Thank you! I have my final coming up soon, and I have been confused on Indirect Truth tables for over a month!

[@morganluger]

Nice simple steps you convey into Logic thanks for your valuable time.

[@SMGsNStilettos]

is there a video on 6.6? I am so confused on this section and can not understand it no matter how much I read the book and listen to my professor.

[@saint-jiub]

26:18 - the three final points for testing argument validity via indirect truth tables

[@MattS-lc8fd]

Thank you for your wonderful lectures. When testing for consistency, the Detective example shows that the statements are consistent when the biconditional row is T Ξ T. You then demonstrate that in the second row F Ξ F produces inconsistent statements. Hurley in the text is content with the first line alone stating that, “Filling out the first line leads to no contradiction, so the statements are consistent.” Is this a contradiction?

[@straxsa]

you are a BLESSING

[@katrinhofting7124]

Your explanations actually helped me a lot, thank you !! (:

[@PhilosophicalTechne]

Hi Pete, thanks for the encouraging words. Unfortunately, I don't plan on posting a 6.6 video lecture. The fallacies are fairly straightforward though, so hopefully you should be fine just reading the textbook. Again, sorry about that.

[@p3skyy388]

Thank you so much for these videos!

[@marooqi]

can you determine if an argument is valid, using a truth table to justify your answer without the conclusion. only 3 premises? in my problem there is no line or symbology between 2 and 3 indicating the 3 is the conclusion.

[@MeiiiiiiiKaiiiiiiii]

can you teach me about "semantic tree" is it same with indirect truth table?? can you explain it for me !! thank you~~

[@NoCap007]

~A>~(~B+C)/D>~B/E>~(F+~G)/EvD//F+A + = conjunction > = conditional im using the same textbook following the rule of simplicity I started with the conclusion (false 3 ways) transfer values of F and A, but tbh I get stuck. Anyhelp would be appreciated thanks.

[@ivonne3030]

thank you I went for a D to B thanks

[@toryglenn5087]

I'm wondering about the first premise. You have: ~A ⊃ (B v C) as your first premise. But if you have a conditional statement in the premise also, how can the negation sign be the main operator? I thought if you had a negation operator along with another operator in the same premise (and it's not in parentheses), then the operator that isn't the negation is always the main operator.

[@toryglenn5087]

At about the 10:47 point, you indicate the negation is the main operator. Also, you did mark the conditional in the first premise as the T, which would imply it to be the main operator. So again, I'm wondering why you're saying the tilde is the main operator.

[@kwirkLA]

Tory Glenn The conditional is the main operator, it was just a mistake on his part

[@toryglenn5087]

That's what I thought. But it was confusing me when I saw the video. Thanks for the reply. :)

[@Obxidian123]

So are u gonna explain how 17:40 isnt a contradiction orrr? Cuz wouldnt both the antecedent and consequent being tru make the conditional true, not false?? Talking ab the conclusion btw

[@michaelebron1280]

Yeah I just noticed that too.

[@francescopiazza4882]

Indriect truth tables...

[@Justin-gl5io]

I love you

[@Zen-lz1hc]

Like

[@montymohammed1902]

Thanks. I hate this logic class with Edward or whatever his name is