Discrete Math - 1.3.3 Constructing New Logical Equivalences

We use known logical equivalences to prove new logical equivalences providing reasoning for each step.

Video Chapters:
Introduction 0:00
Show Equivalence is True using Truth Table 0:12
Constructing a New Logical Equivalence 2:58
Practice With Me 6:50
Practice On Your Own 12:17
Up Next 14:18

Textbook: Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 7e

[GregoryBastion]

Learning propositional logic in class? 4 weeks. Learning propositional logic on youtube? An over caffeinated evening that became an all-nighter

[ecru_]

Had to stop here for tonight but wow
You simplified everything my prof taught me in like 3+ hours up to this point

How many weeks of class versus the 3 hours spent here is a huge difference for me
I actually understand stuff now

[E.C.REDEEM]

Professor Brehm, you taught me this so eloquently compared to my professor. My professor zoomed through the laws, zoomed through the process of the two column proof, and jumped straight into predicates. THANK YOU!

[mustafa]

This semester I am having Linear Algebra and Discrete Structure Blessing for me to have both courses playlists from your channel. You are making these courses easy for me.
Appreciate your efforts

[ashleybrehon]

I'm currently in a discrete structures class for y graduate degree and your videos saved my life. Thank you for your breakdown and for making the material enjoyable in a way rather than feeling like banging my head against a wall lmao.

[DaiMoscv]

Despite the fact I'm watching these videos for 8 hours straight, I'm still not bored. Finally I feel like I can actually solve these problems! thank you again.

[MoTharwat-swdc]

I'm so lucky I found you. You make everything elegantly

[valeriereid]

Many thanks Professor Brehm for making your videos available. I am enjoying my logic class because of these videos.

[jenanalgarah]

you saved my life for tomorrow's final !!! THANK YOU SO MUCH PROF.B

[godwinn.chibuike]

Kimberly Brehm, You are a lifesaver! Thank you!

[spicyshizz]

13:13 Shouldn't that be Demorgans 2nd Law since it was negation distrubitng a dijunction

[MFR]

Hi Prof, Thank you for the great series

Should we be memorising the laws?

[angelcp]

thanks for the breakdown, Prof. B but I got to repeat this again for a better and clearer understanding.

[izeofsan]

9:26 wouldn't it be the 2nd De Morgan law in this one? Thanks for your videos, they are amazing!

[jamesuugsw]

Could someone please explain how the first step happened at 8:48?

[darrylnatale]

Can someone expand the steps she took when she combined the commutative and associative laws at 10:30? As I understand it:

(¬p ∨ ¬q) ∨ (p ∨ q)
≡ (p ∨ q) ∨ (¬p ∨ ¬q) – because communicative law

This seems clear to me. But how do we get from this to swapping around the propositions contained within the ( )s on either side of the center ∨ to :
≡ (p ∨ ¬p) ∨ (q ∨ ¬q)

via the associative law (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r) ?

Where is the r in this case above?

[minuteproof]

Does anyone know where can i practice some examples

[shehryarkhan]

love you teacher from Pakistan, It helped alot thank you.

[aryarose]

Hi, I don't understand 10:30 with the commutative and associative law

[moustachegirlexe]

Could we have gone from (not p or not q) or (p or q) to not(p or q) or (p or q) and then to truth since p or not p is t?
Sorry for not using the math symbols I don’t know how to do them on my phone.
Thank you in advance and thank you professor for helping me with your series!