Logical equivalence without truth tables (Screencast 2.2.4)

This video explores how to use existing logical equivalences to prove new ones, without the use of truth tables.

[evelynwallace]

Thank you! I missed the class that covered this material. Thank god for the internet and kind strangers.

[astyanax]

Clear, concise, accurate.

Good stuff. Appreciate it.

[joshuanicholls]

Thank you so much for this :)

Now comes the challenge of memorising tautologies and using them for my proofs.

[VALRable]

Thank you very much for this video. It certainly helps to make this topic clearer.

[wwrmmzi]

Thanks this so well done and explained, wish you also did Modal Logic and PA

[therealmaveric]

Excellent video this really helped me understand what really is a simple concept.

[ilhampamungkas]

well this is really helpfull, but what if i have, lets say 4/5 proposition. can i still practice this method or what

[SangaJanga]

thanks this helped so much! please continue doing discrete math videos!

[silastops]

Thanks, its clear and precise. I managed to gain an insight.

[mohammedashiq]

P->q<=>(~pVq)Can u prove this without using truthtable?

[ankitgupta]

How to prove two given statements not to be logically equivalent ?

[fastsolution]

one thing i dont understand in this video that in the conditional statement negation in only on p why you put negation on whole statement plzzz i am confused clear me thanks!

[marrjoja]

Thank you Thank you very much for your explanation! ! You really helped me T_T

[CubanSauce]

Interesting. It confuses me that you can do something to one side and not to the other. Math, i tell you.

[sajiiidali]

(~p(~q ᴧ r )) v ( q ᴧ r ) v ( p ᴧ r ) ↔ r plz solve this equation by laws of i m waiting ur answer