@kevinlenyatsa3648
Just as I was planning on stopping my overthinking
@sairithvickgummadala2688
You've just earned a subscriber, Sir.
@ApprendreSansNecessite
Habit and flow are the greatest enemies of logical reasoning.
@Syllogist
Algebraic calculation of your polysyllogism (2:37): x - rockets, y - poles, z - trams, v - ropes, w – tents 1. А: All rockets are poles (xy) 2. I: Some poles are trams (yz+yz’) 3. I: Some trams are ropes (zv+zv’) 4. А: All ropes are tents (vw) - - - Calculation Part1: ((xy)*(yz+yz’))/Y = (xyz+xyz’)/Y = xz+xz’ = x(z+z’) - - - INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION 1: Some rockets are poles [and some rockets are NOT-poles] - - - Calculation Part2: (xz+xz’)*(zv+zv’)/Z = (xzv+xzv’)/Z = xv+xv’ = x(v+v’) - - - INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION 2: Some rockets are ropes [and some rockets are NOT-ropes] - - - Calculation Part3: ((xv+xv’)*vw)/V = (xvw)/V = xw = wx - - - 5. A: There is tents which are rockets (wx) [so as « There is rockets which are tents» (xw)] – TOTAL VALID CONCLUSION. You’s variants of conclusion: 1 «Some tents are trams» (wz+wz’) – FALSE (It’s NOT TRUE! :-) 2 «Some ropes are rockets» (vx+vx’) – FALSE 3 «Some trams are rockets» (zx+zx’) – FALSE 4 «Some poles are rockets» (yx+yx’) – FALSE (It’s NOT TRUE! :-) I'm sorry, but the truth is more expensive :-)
@Ou8y2k2
Incomplete; We need explanations of both analogies and abductive reasoning.
@YanT141
Keep up the schedule!
@JulieParker-j7q
You explain things in such a logical and simple way.
@altruren3215
Excellent Video
@cherishrenee325
Dope video!!
@KevOtieno
It is very educative
@Sacha-c6t
Thank you.
@andrewparle9183
Sorry, conclusion 4 is false, because the set of rockets can be empty. "All" does not imply existence. Conclusion 1 is true because "some" implies existence.
@nehemaialord2653
Im jesus everybody. just taking my time
@mysteryplays2788
It’s my sats
@amp47classified