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

We do two exercises in truth trees with conditionals and biconditionals.

0:00 [Intro]
0:19 [Question #1]
3:14 [Question #2]

*--Playlists--*

*--Recommended Textbooks--*

Hello, welcome to TheTrevTutor. I'm here to help you learn your college courses in an easy, efficient manner. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe and follow me for updates. If you have any questions, leave them below. I try to answer as many questions as possible.

In this video on #Logic / #PhilosphicalLogic I introduce rules for the conditional and biconditional for truth trees. We talk about conditional decomposition, biconditional decomposition, negated conditional decomposition, and negated biconditional decomposition. Then, we do an example of a truth tree.

[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"

[aryan]

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

[Jason]

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.

[oop]

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?

[Picturesque_]

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?

[Jason]

can you show examples that shows consistency?