Logic 101 (#7) Compound Sentences

Now that we know two logical operations, we can see how to create compound sentences. We can use logical operators on compound sentences just as we use them on simple sentences, but translating English into compound sentences can be troublesome.

[clintoncarucci]

How would you read the 3 bullet points found at 2:11?

1.) I eat fruit loops and/or I eat crispix or I eat special K
2.) I eat fruit loops or I eat crispix and/or special K
3.) I eat fruit loops and/or I eat crispix and/or I eat special K

I'm not understanding the use of the parenthesis and how they impact the original statement in plain English. I know this isn't the intent but I read the parentheses as xor instead of v. 

In the video you state that "F v C v S" is not acceptable "because it isn't clear where we have simple sentences and where we have compound sentences and what is being disjointed with what" However the original statement is written as "F v C v S" So how do we know when/where we should be using the parentheses? 

Can you elaborate more on converting compound sentences to logical notation?

[StaticBlaster]

Learning logic in quarantine. Every American needs to learn this subject in order to Make America Smart Again.

[the.blue.raven]

Great course. The font though.. is very hard to read.

[Tyrannigon]

It's unclear whether it means ~(R v F) or (~R) v F.

[ajf]

So which one was correct, ~R v F or ~(RvF)?

[pablomiyara]

wait, why can't the - negate the hole statement, instead of each substatement? why can't the negation mean "it is not true that (either i eat rice, or am female)"?

[gm]

@4:08 I can imagine that translators have this problem all the time when trying to work out the logic of the statement they are interpreting from one language into another.

[BlitznFritz]

the logical connectives employed are NOT and OR, but not an exclusive or. There are 6 simple sentences.
F: I am female
~F: I am not female.
R: I eat rice
~R: I do not eat rice.
FvR: I eat rice and am female.
~FvR: the negation of the above simple sentence.
Is this correct?

[cartoonhanks]

2:56

~ R (I do NOT eat rice) v F (I am female) = M(I am male because I do not eat rice.)
R v F = M (Because I do eat rice).

So I switched the roles around, what if I changed it the other way around?

F v ~R = R.
~ F v ~ R = R
F v R = ~ R

~ F v R = ? Who knows :).
I am Not Female or I eat rice.
Which means, because I am not female, I do not eat rice. Or I am not female, and I eat rice.

[ngzfwyq]

@ 2:53 "I'm a man that doesn't eat rice."
Maybe also: "I don't have to eat rice to be female" 🤔
@ 2:11 I preferred the last bullet. The first two with parentheses convey to me that there's a cereal preference.

[devon]

I didn't put my answer in the comments because I didn't feel the need, but then I watched the next video and felt guilty. ~RvF

[abc]

If the constructions (FvC)vS and Fv(CvS) are logical identical, why don't we just write it as FvCvS? It's the same thing as in the associative rule from basic arithmetik: (a+b)+c=a+(b+c)=a+b+c

[orel]

~(R v F)

I think that's how I would do the 2:53 part, dunno if it's true.

[Cactustone]

It seems the English word "nor" would clear up any confusion between ~R v F and ~(R v F). I believe the use or "or" is only grammatically correct for ~R v F, and "noe" is only grammatically correct for ~(R v F).

[SarunasZukauskas]

-R v F
That's how I understood it.

[jayrod]

You talk very fast and go through concepts quickly.

[djpathak]

2:52 : " - (R v F) " or " - R v F "

[Martin]

E= I Eat Rice
A= I Am Female
~(E|A)

To be grammatically exhaustive, correct, and succinct you'd say "It is not the case I eat rice or am female" and since the subject is continuous from the first simple sentence, you can safely assume that the entire disjunction is not true. 

[nitrame]

Ok, maybe I have OCD, but I think the title of the video is missing a colon.

[Merione]

WRITTEN AT THE PAUSE AT 2:54
~(RvF)
where:
R = I eat rice
F = I am female