Appendix 1. Philosophical Logic

[@hawaiianbabyrose]

Sir, I'd like to express my oceanic gratitude towards this comprehensive logic course you provided for us. It was highly educational and delightful to watch and make notes of. I bingewatched it in a single week and I don't regret anything. I cannot thank you enough, now I can move towards non-classical logic slowly, but surely. Forever grateful -

[@fighter4711]

Hey Mark. I just wanted to let you know I enjoy watching your videos, It's helped a lot and I hope to see more on philosophy and logic. Have a good day!

[@chandansrivastava1669]

Amazing breadth and depth of knowledge...with unique ways to present them so becomes easily comprehendable ...great job ....keep going!!!

[@ostihpem]

I think the problem of the set S of all sets that do not contain themselves is only if S contains itself or not, which is a problem, because by logic S contains itself and not (contradiction) and that means that S is not a well-defined set after all. In the video it looks as if the set of all sets that do not contain themselves must!!! also not contain itself by definition, but I don't see that necessity. I think also that the new development of non-classical logic pretty nicely shows that modern logic is only seen as a psychological logic where we are able to manipulate everything, if we only want. I think this video is mighty good and interesting, because of its bird-eyes-view.

[@cavila5630]

Thanks for the sharing work! It's great knowing history behind the work in logic. By the way don't you have any helpful hints about rational symbolizing? It's really confusing such as the Mxy: maria is the mother of vanessa! Further with more complicated sentences. Thanks, hope for your reply

[@rbsz6202]

I'm really curious, what program are you using for this presentation?

[@szaboaz]

Prezi

[@Hegeleze]

Obviously I know you can't include everything here, but why use Heraclitus instead of Parmenides for binary logic? Surely the latter has more influence in the history of logic.

[@francescopiazza4882]

Great lesson!

[@PotterSuppositionalist]

Paraconsistent logic rejects the principle of explosion, which states that from a contradiction anything can be derived. There are versions that reject the principle of non-contradiction. There are many-valued logics which hold to three truth values: true (only), false (only) and both (true and false). While I'm not necessarily advocating for these, they show that not all logic systems are based on LNC. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on non-classical logic. plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent The principle of bivalence is rejected under many-valued logic, fuzzy logic and many alternative systems. If you agree that some propositions may be too vague to be either T or F, or cease to be true if iterated many times, or are in some sense between true and false, that is what motivates some non-classical logic. Even if you don't, there simply exists some systems of logic which directly conflict with LEM. Fuzzy logic in particular is useful in computer science.

[@Kwintessential2]

Now I do remember Pythagoras Theory in Geometry

[@yoshiinoue7383]

They all belong to mathematical logic.

[@andrewkrylov1501]

Interesting topic. But your constant clicking your tongue makes it unlistenable.