Learn about how to get the converse, obverse, and contrapositive of categorical statements and which ones count as valid inferences.
Пікірлер: 41
@user-fj1xp7qm5x3 ай бұрын
This video was much more helpful than the way the in-class teacher described this lesson.
@arcanetrace661 Жыл бұрын
All of this is clearly explained but forgot to mention that there are two types of conversion Simple conversion and partial conversion In simple conversion only particular affirmativ (i) and universal negative (E) proposition are valid A and O proposition cannot be converted in simple conversion in PARTIAL CONVERSION this can only be applied to A and E propositions The rules in partial conversion is the quality of the convertend is reduced from universal to particular A is to (i) E is to (O)
@davidamat65883 жыл бұрын
Your explanations are extremely clear. You should keep on doing these videos. Thanks!!
@Sorya-gf7qw3 жыл бұрын
0:50 I think conversion of A is wrong . If all A are B then it's not necessary that all B are A . I think It's more accurate to say " Some B are A ".
@giovannipetro3 жыл бұрын
yeah that's true it's a fallacy. Illicit conversion of A
@rust54274 ай бұрын
That's true, I was shocked when I got a wrong mark when I converted "Asians are filipinos" to "some filipinos are asians". The correct answer is "Asians are filipinos" like how does a subset(filipino) envelop the whole set(asian)? Like, that does not preserve the same meaning as the statement before
@trishagrabert63912 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for teaching me this today!
@natalychavez39163 жыл бұрын
Thank you this was extremely helpful!!
@riyatanwar21593 жыл бұрын
Conversion of A is "some B are A" and the conversion of O is not possible
@ramyasharma28472 ай бұрын
If you can please tell why O cannot have a valid conversion would be helpful, since Some P are not S seems logical for some S are not P. e.g. some boys are not poets -> some poets are not boys Is also similar?
@domt1Ай бұрын
@@ramyasharma2847from the fact that some animal is not a dog, it does not follow that some dog is not an animal
@jaysonrayabellar3253 жыл бұрын
thank you for this!!! it helped me in my online classes
@kuldipdhiman6 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for clearly explaining them.
@rishika64562 жыл бұрын
Thanku sir for such a great teaching 🥰 May God Bless you
@martinluckyraj3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for wonderful explanation
@rovoclash4099 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the explanation.. very much helpfull ...
@shade767 Жыл бұрын
A - Some B are A E - No B are A I - Some B are A O - (Not Convertible)
@levinahakinyi60403 жыл бұрын
U made my work easier thanks
@t1lt69faceitclips33 жыл бұрын
omfg u just saved me in the obe thanks
@Shreyaa203 жыл бұрын
Very well explained
@suruthilenin8293 жыл бұрын
WOW. This is sooo useful
@jahzeellariosa64122 жыл бұрын
My prof's lecture for 3 hours explained in 13 minutes bruuhhhh
@CrimsonDevil_Rias5 ай бұрын
Coming from a mathematical standpoint, inversion also works on E-type and I-type statements Inversion works in the following way Take the regular statements/claims and just term-complement both in the statement For example: A-type inversion: All A are B → All non-A are non-B E-type inversion: No A are B → No non-A are non-B I-type inversion: Some A are B → Some non-A are non-B O-type inversion: Some A are not B → Some non-A are not non-B If you replace A and B with some example terms, say A is dogs and B is cats, then it actually makes intuitive sense for E-type and I-type statements No dogs are cats, no non-dogs are non-cats (which by double negating the first term means All dogs are not cats) Some dogs are cats, some non-dogs are non-cats (You can take this to mean Some animals that are not dogs are also not cats) And like Conversion, there's no guarantee that the truth value for the inversion of an A and O statement will be the same.
@philologick61755 ай бұрын
Thanks for the comment! Unfortunately, this inference would be invalid for E- and I-type statements as well. This can be proven through the use of Venn diagrams (which I hope to make a video about in the future). For now, though, we can stick to coming up with counterexamples. Let's say, for "No A are B," that A stands for "dogs" and B for "cats" such that the statement is "No dogs are cats." The statement "No nondogs are noncats" wouldn't follow. This can be tricky to see because of the complements, but I think it's a bit clearer if we rephrase it as such: "There are no things that are not dogs that are also things that are not cats." But there are plenty of such things. For instance, my washing machine is a nondog that is a noncat. The "no nondogs" bit can't be double negated because the "no" just serves as a universal quantifier indicating the relationship between both categories - it isn't serving to negate the complement. As for I-type statements, this one threw me for a loop! That's because I found it impossible to think of any categories for which "Some non-A are non-B" would be false. There might be an example that I'm just not creative enough to think of. But even here we can prove with the use of Venn diagrams that the inference would be invalid. Even without, if inversion is defined as just swapping each term with its complement, then it should be equally possible to get from "Some non-A are non-B" to "Some A are B," and here we can easily find counterexamples. Consider: "Some nonparrots are nontrees." This is true, some things that aren't parrots are things that aren't trees. If we grab each term's respective complement, we get "Some parrots are trees," which serves as a counterexample.
@praptibawse6698 Жыл бұрын
Thanka a lot for this vid✨🙏
@user-qm8fw6qn7q9 ай бұрын
Great video
@destinymartin85003 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU BRO
@NeddyTheNoodle2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Philologick! :)
@WaseemAhmad-bf2mw3 жыл бұрын
Conversion can't be applied for A
@davidamat65883 жыл бұрын
Did you watch the whole video? He clearly says that Conversion is valid only for E and I, and that Contraposition is only valid for A and O. Check 11:51
@manhalrahman57852 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@Zen-lz1hc2 жыл бұрын
Like thank you
@_SINGULAR__2 ай бұрын
Conversion of O type propositions while possible is invalid
@pratyushsharma1292 жыл бұрын
You are teaching it wrong. For A, some B are A would be right conversion. Conversion for O is not possible.
@joeking4414 Жыл бұрын
O propositions never converts validly and A propositions convert accidentally and not simply like I & E. I came here because I was confused and needed help after bombing my last quiz and the first 30 seconds the video is wrong... thanks I'm now more stressed.
@yansselgarcia1250 Жыл бұрын
I would recommend watching the whole video.
@kiahholman2315 Жыл бұрын
The I contraposition doesn’t exist, the A + O converse doesn’t exist
@NightOwlGamingz2 жыл бұрын
9:10
@kashifshah17312 жыл бұрын
You did conversion wrong.
@idioticbeatzz Жыл бұрын
You’re wrong about conversion
@AA-sn9lz Жыл бұрын
This is all wrong. You're changing truth values of the sentences which is a big NO NO