Two exercises in TRUTH TREES with Negation, Conditional, and Biconditional - Logic

[@T-The-K]

I started today with a comment saying i had to rewatch the first video a few times because i had a slower time having everything click compared to everything so far. And happy to say im ending the day feeling super comfortable with Truth Trees. But i guess i'll see that for sure in the next video "complex truth trees"

[@QuocDatPhung]

Superb!

[@oop1761]

for the first question, if i were to branch the implication first, i get not P or Q, immediately closing off the not P branch. Is this correct?

[@Jason10111]

can you show examples that shows consistency?

[@DaiMoscv]

can I start from line 1 and 2 then follow along till I get inconsistence? Because that's what I did but the Truth Tree was bigger.

[@771aryan]

Please make sure the videos have appropriate volume. I can't understand much without headphones.

[@Picturesque_09]

I'm confused. Does this argument have a conclusion. And if so that would be 'R' in the third line but you didn't negate it. In fact you didn't negate anything. Aren't we supposed to assume the complete opposite in order to refute the assumptions?

[@Trevtutor]

We’re checking for consistency here to see if these are all compatible with each other. No argument here.

[@Picturesque_09]

@@Trevtutor Thank you for the reply! So when we do that we don't negate anything?

[@Trevtutor]

@@Picturesque_09 Correct. You only negate if you're trying to prove an entailment or tautology.

[@Jason10111]

can you show examples that shows consistency?