Introduction to Logic

share ›
‹ links

Below are the top discussions from Reddit that mention this online Coursera course from Stanford University.

This course is an introduction to Logic from a computational perspective.

Relational Algebra Problem Solving Propositional Calculus Mathematical Logic

Next cohort starts September 28. Accessible for free. Completion certificates are offered.

Affiliate disclosure: Please use the blue and green buttons to visit Coursera if you plan on enrolling in a course. Commissions Reddsera receives from using these links will keep this site online and ad-free. Reddsera will not receive commissions if you only use course links found in the below Reddit discussions.

Taught by
Michael Genesereth
Associate Professor

Offered by
Stanford University

Reddit Posts and Comments

2 posts • 81 mentions • top 49 shown below

r/ItalyInformatica • comment
6 points • alorenzi

Di quale corso si trattava? (durata/argomenti/linguaggio usato?)

Da che livello partivi? Dove vuoi arrivare?

​

Per fare pratica sul "problem solving" ti consiglio /r/dailyprogrammer (piú che "daily" é weekly o giú di li). Ci sono un sacco di esercizi e molti ti guidano con funzioni intermedie che ti aiutano ad arrivare alla soluzione finale.

​

Poi se vuoi qualcosa sulla logica c'é Un bel corso gratuito.

​

Il mio percorso: ho iniziato a programmare in GW Basic alle medie (fine anni '90), poi alle superiori qualcosa di Pascal (e chi non ha fatto pascal alle superiori? :P ) e visual basic. In quel periodo mi sono avvicinato al c, acquistando un libro a caso e poi ho scoperto che era IL libro Kernighan Ritchie. Contemporaneamente mi installavo il mio primo Linux. Universitá informatica UniMi e poi ho avuto la fortuna di poter seguire corsi RedHat grazie all'azienda dove lavoravo qualche anno fa e diventare io stesso istruttore. E ovviamente tanto, tanto, tanto studio per i cavoli miei con libri e corsi online (coursera e poi udemy sono manne dal cielo).
Oggi mi occupo di automation e monitoring.

​

>(ho visto che ~~c'è~~ ce ne sono molte)

r/Libertarian • comment
4 points • Rxef3RxeX92QCNZ

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/logic • post
1 points • miaumee
Stanford's free course on deductive logic on Coursera (propositional, relational, Herbrand logic)
r/FreeOnlineCourses • post
1 points • Diksha011
Introduction to Logic Online Course by Stanford University. The course will start on October 2, 2017.
r/logic • comment
1 points • Verstandeskraft

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction/

r/tifu • comment
1 points • fearghul

I suspect your dad is probably trying to impart a similar lesson to what I'm talking about here, and also about being frugal in getting exactly what you need for a particular task. You've definitely caused your "practice" to take a hit thanks to the loss of computer access. I do however have a little suggestion that might help you make good use of the time since you still have internet access and be of far greater use to you than improving your speed like new gadgets would. There are things like [this] (https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction) course in propositional logic, or ones in discreet mathematics that can help you greatly with refining your best tool, your mind and understanding of problem solving.

Way back in the mists of time I did computer science, and those skills will serve you well anywhere, even outside of programming (I ended up changing direction and those skills are still amongst the most valuable I ever acquired.)

r/Fitness • comment
1 points • SouthTriceJack

I would recommend taking this course:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/politics • comment
1 points • DJTHatesPuertoRicans

Ye habebi

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/sportsbook • comment
1 points • ahhhhhdangit

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction Here you go. I’ll even pay the enrollment fee for you

r/technology • comment
1 points • zanidor

So to recap your argument: two girls did something stupid once, therefore all girls are stupid and Apple is doomed because it hires women.

I found a Coursera course you may be interested in: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/coursera • comment
1 points • SoggyBreadCrust

I applied for financial assistance. So the late submissions would affect my grade? I would rather be done with this period from july to sep since i have more time now compared to the later sessions from oct to dec.

Edit: Just saw this on the page of the course i applied. > What if I need additional time to complete the course?

> Not a problem - course schedules are flexible, and course fee payments provide 180 days of full course access and Certificate eligibility. Self-paced courses have suggested deadlines, but you won’t be penalized for missing deadlines as long as you earn your Certificate within 180 days. Session-based courses may require you to meet deadlines to stay on track; but if you fall behind, you can switch to a later session, and any work you’ve completed will transfer with you.

So can i assume that i would still be able to get the certificate without any penalties?

r/Libertarian • comment
1 points • FourFingeredMartian

> You have to pass a constitutional amendment before you can exercise your freedom of speech?

You were insinuating I was making such a claim, I didn't.

>Yes, yes it would. That's how our government works.

Clearly didn't read a thing I said, further, you're very uneducated on the matters of SCOTUS, the supreme court has turned over past rulings & admitted later the law/ruling was unconstitutional.

>You used a lot of words to say nothing of value. Even more awkward, your poorly worded diatribe has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

LOL whatever, I guess we weren't discussing the constitution, silly me.

edit: Further, I'm sorry you can't follow simple logic, it's key for critical thinking. Here is a good place you can remedy that deficiency.

r/gadgets • comment
1 points • jimjones1233

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/The_Donald • comment
1 points • 44OzStyrofoamCup

Check out this Coursera module: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/Austin • comment
1 points • 90percent_crap

That course has a prerequisite

r/askphilosophy • comment
1 points • manamesacubapete

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

There's a free course from Stanford!

Also, Nicolas Smith as a really good book, "Logic: Laws of Truth" for learning the basics about propositional and predicate logic, as well as different proof systems such as trees, axiomatic proofs and natural deduction.

r/logic • post
1 points • Mynotoar
Are there good courses for propositional and other types of logic online?

I've just recently tried out the coursera Introduction to Logic course, but was disappointed when I realised that I can't access the second week of materials until 30th March (a few week's time.) Are there any free courses on logic which allow you to access all the content at once? My first preference is for a course that is text-based rather than a video based and/or YouTube series, but I'm happy to try a video series if there's a really good free one available.

r/computerscience • post
21 points • RGnt
Planning a course list for undergraduate self study 'degree', and would like your input.

Hello, yet another one planning on Bachelors level studies online with heavy emphasis on machine learning and data science, i've been trying to put together a list of courses for my self to complete (and get a fancy certificate for completed courses) using coursera. So far I've come up with following list:

Learn to Program: The Fundamentals and Learn to Program: Crafting Quality Code (University of Toronto - https://www.coursera.org/learn/learn-to-program / https://www.coursera.org/learn/program-code )

Introduction to Discrete Mathematics of Computer Science (University of California, Sand Diego High School of Economics - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/discrete-mathematics )

Data Science Math Skills (Duke University - https://www.coursera.org/learn/datasciencemathskills ) Introduction to Logic (Standford University - https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction )

Data Structures and Algorithms (University of California, San Diego, High School of Economics - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/data-structures-algorithms )

Fundamentals of Computing (Rice University - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/computer-fundamentals )

Machine Learning (Stanford University - https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning )

Deep Learning (deeplearning.ai - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/deep-learning )

Software Design and Architecture Specialization (University of Alberta - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/software-design-architecture )

Natural Language Processing (High School of Economics - https://www.coursera.org/learn/language-processing )

Data Science Specialization - (John Hopkins University - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/jhu-data-science)

When it comes to math, physics and possibly electrical engineering I've considered relying purely on khanacademy to fill in the gaps I have at moment.

So here's the main question, is there something you guys/gals can see that is "wrong", is there something that's missing or just would be nice to add on top of that?

Any comments/critique/your opinions are most welcome!

r/learnprogramming • comment
2 points • throwawayacc201711

Honestly, I would suggest an intro to logic (philosophy type class) as a good intro. Something like https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction or alternative link http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/index.php

It’s literally the basis of what problem solving is. As others have mentioned, you take a big problem and break it down into smaller problems. But a solid foundation I think in logic also helps frame your mind to look at problems like that. It’s also a good way to take a break from “pure programming” like learning while also doing something that would be good for you in the long run.

I think learning about logic 1) helping with reasoning skills 2) helps with programming 3) helps with problem solving 4) it’s just a great soft skill to learn more about

r/Libertarian • comment
2 points • moonshiver
r/cringe • comment
1 points • firsttimeforeveryone

Dude... tell me where I said you were wrong 100% because you were using logical fallacies. All I did was point out your fallacies. I actually entertained your first one and answered it.

>You say we can't directly compare watching someone starve and dropping bombs from the sky. Neither of these actions were as sanitary and passive as you characterize them. Both Nazi death camp guards and the soldiers bombing civilian targets with incendiary bombs are actively murdering people. It is, in fact, directly comparable.

Ok!!!!!!!! - again this isn't an argument against my original point - argue against how I classify the people I'm talking about not try to draw a parallel and say how it proves me wrong. But ok... What I was getting at is there is a difference for humans and how we conceptualize others' deaths when you are up in the sky dropping a bomb vs watching someone wither away in front of you. If you think they are directly comparable, that is laughable.

>In other words, "I was only following orders." Which a bomber crew that dropped incendiary bombs on civilian targets would never have had to say because their side won the war.

What are you on about? This has nothing to do with who won the war. I said in my other comment I would be fine if you mourned/celebrated Nazi bombers that died doing the Blitz.

>Argument

Look I'll make the fucking argument for you... the argument against me isn't that "oh but what about the Nazi's derp derp derp." The argument against what I said is that humans have free will and saying they knew what they were doing was wrong and wasn't achieving victory so any moral human would not have done the action.

Dude, you don't know how to make a proper logical argument. It's sad you tried to point out a logical fallacy I made and just got it wrong. Just some suggestions.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments

Bye

r/portugal • comment
1 points • OuiOuiKiwi

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Ou consultar a página de qualquer disciplina de Lógica de Primeira Ordem numa Universidade. Se bem que o Coursera é mais fácil de acompanhar com os vídeos.

r/EnoughCommieSpam • comment
1 points • gordo65

> Actually the statement you quoted is an argument, I'm sorry it's above you.

A statement is not an argument. I think you may find this helpful

>A Good god. A real diversity officer. I can't imagine how much of a busybody you'd have to be to get that job.

There's your reading comprehension skills, betraying you again. I never said I was a Diversity Officer.

Just so you know, in the real world, salaried personnel often work on projects in addition to their regular duties. Such projects might include things like assisting with a diversity review.

> I think people do quote hiring all the time, I know this because I work in a place that won't hire white men if they can avoid it.

Right. So how is it that you got to work there? And why haven't you filed a complaint? Oh yeah... it's because you're full of shit.

>Harvard University is currently being sued for discriminating against Asians in their admission practices because they were admitting other races over more qualified Asians.

Student admissions and hiring are governed by different sets of rules. Still, if the plaintiffs in that case can prove that Asians were denied admissions because of a quota system, they'll win, since such a system would be discriminatory. Harvard, of course, denies that their selection system is equivalent to a quota system.

>I was curious so I looked up the definition of race in the dictionary and it said "A group of people grouped by common descent or heredity" so forgive me for thinking you're arbitrarily redefining words to fit your political motivation.

You seem to be very heavily invested in the notion that race is an inherited, immutable, and significant aspect of a person.

>I don't believe for a second you'd call a white person that identifies as American and a Black person that identifies as American the same race.

Right. Because despite what the dictionary tells you, race is a social construct, which is why you can't just arbitrarily choose a person's race.

You'll also find that it's impossible to determine a person's race using any objective criteria, which is how we know that it's a social construct, rather than something that's derived from a person's DNA.

>I'm still waiting to hear all about if Rachael Dolezal will still have white privilege if she identifies as black or of Barak Obama will be the recipient of white privilege if he decides to identify as white.

You really need to look into this. Again, it doesn't matter what a race a person chooses for themselves. It's a social construct, and society will identify what race a person must be.

If if were possible to choose one's own race, then we could do away with racism entirely, thus obviating all those programs that you hate so much, the ones that are meant to prevent discrimination. Maybe that's why you are so intent on defining everyone's race in terms of their DNA, rather than accepting the fact that it's a social construct.

r/KotakuInAction • comment
0 points • FreeThinkingMan

> It's total BS to assert the claim that everything ever created, used, or consumed is the result of politics.

Your first three paragraphs do not refute my arguments. What the napkin is made out of, cleanliness, the cost of it, how it is shipped to stores, etc all involve politics... You can call it, "the politics of napkins". You have just been estranged from the creation process that goes into how goods like napkins are made so you think they are just magic. You have no clue of the thousands+ processes, relationships, laws, etc behind the scenes that make the napkin.

> It's total BS to assert the claim that everything ever created, used, or consumed is the result of politics.

That is a straw man and possibly logically indefensible. May I recommend this course for you

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

r/NeutralPolitics • comment
1 points • gordo65

He's saying that there is evidence that Obama secretly admires Farrakhan, and links to a source. The source itself says only that the two were photographed together.

So now you're saying that I can't point out that a single photograph of two people together is not evidence that they admire one another or agree with one another, unless I provide a source? Fine, here's two:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/revolution/docs/Common_Sense.pdf

r/askphilosophy • comment
2 points • Mauss22

If you are learning on your own, I found this book a good place to start. It came with some good software for doing proofs/trees and stuff. Not sure if it will give a great guide for "how logic is used in philosophy"... but it will help you use logic in your philosophy :).
https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Logic-Propositional-Revised-3rd/dp/0130258490

2nd book in the series if you like the 1st: https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Logic-Predicate-2nd/dp/0131649892/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522611084&sr=1-3

To expose yourself to other notations, etc. check out this free course https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

If you want to get a flavor of logic in philosophy, my interest was sparked by 1. Quine 'From a Logical Point of View' and 2. "Godel Escher Bach" by Hofstadter.

The important thing is to find something you enjoy reading or doing.

r/IWantToLearn • comment
2 points • UnreproducibleWhy

Logician/CS here:

Take a course in logic, perhaps start with propositional as that’s the most common/best overlap. For the practicing person this is enough, if you want something rigorous that can be used eg in maths then consider intuitionistic logic and linear logic: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Flip the coin/read about bad arguments as opposed to just good/valid ones so you know how to identify BS when you see it. this book is a quick and wonderful read illustrating bad arguments (such as straw man etc...): https://bookofbadarguments.com/ *i read this in about 3 hours

I found when learning this stuff that mathematical proofs aren’t the most accessible of things to start with so perhaps tackle logical thinking by breaking proof/reasoning down into approaches, popular approaches are proof by contradiction, deduction and induction:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof#Methods

r/math • post
1 points • mondoycult
Coursera Courses

Has anyone had experience with either of these two coursera courses (1) (2) if so how were they would you say they are good places to begin for understanding of logic in math? Are there any prerequisites as I have very milted understanding just some pre-algebra experience and I want to begin at the very beginning of understanding the logic behind math and then apply such logic when I teach myself high level math.

r/mathematics • post
1 points • mondoycult
Coursera Courses

Has anyone had experience with either of these two coursera courses (1) (2) if so how were they would you say they are good places to begin for understanding of logic in math? Are there any prerequisites as I have very milted understanding just some pre-algebra experience and I want to begin at the very beginning of understanding the logic behind math and then apply such logic when I teach myself high level math.

r/learnmath • post
1 points • mondoycult
Coursera Courses

Has anyone had experience with either of these two coursera courses (1) (2) if so how were they would you say they are good places to begin for understanding of logic in math? Are there any prerequisites as I have very milted understanding just some pre-algebra experience and I want to begin at the very beginning of understanding the logic behind math and then apply such logic when I teach myself high level math.

r/UofT • comment
3 points • kainu2612

> Not for course work. Just for interest. I took a course in Rhetoric this year where we did logical fallacies. Peaked my interest.

Based on this, it means that you are interested in informal logic, not formal logic.

But if you want to start on formal logic PHL245 is the course.

If you want to self-study, propositional logic is the place to start.

this is the course you can take in the summer

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction/

or you can read these lecture notes

http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/Logic%20SP%202015/Logic%20Notes.pdf

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/2000/LogicProof/notes.pdf

http://www.math.mcgill.ca/bshepherd/math240/logic.pdf

http://philosophy.wlu.edu/gregoryp/class/Brief%20Intro.pdf

r/askphilosophy • comment
13 points • Mauss22

Free, general logic resources:

Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises & interactive community;

List of open/free sources.

J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools;

Open Logic Project

Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises;

Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide;

~~Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught~~ ~~- w/ free workbook;~~ (edit: link dead)

Free Modal Logic: http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/\~frank/MLHandbook//

Free Software: Carnap!, Truth Table Gen, Taut (prop/pred)

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred, which I used in my undergrad). If you buy Pospesel's, see this prof's page. She uploads videos using the software, solving proofs, etc. It would help with self study

r/exmuslim • comment
1 points • in_the_mood_4_reddit

> Can you prove a fact using a false premise?

You bet I can,. definition [proposition is known truth, premise is assumption, conclusion is deduction from proposition]

I live in Mumbai Proposition: Mumbai is in India
False Premise: I live in Calcutta
Conclusion: I live in India [fact]
. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . ..
I live in India
Proposition: Human live on earth
False Premise: I am american
Therefore, I live on earth. [fact]
. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . ..
Truth is, You can prove anything at will.. for the proposition Mumbai is in India, There are atleast 4000 cities that are in india.. So using those cities as a premise I can prove a fact (I'm Indian). But There is another thing.
I can also disprove it, with false premise.. suppose [I live in California] false premise, then I don't live in India. Now I've just disproven the fact. I arrived at wrong conclusion using false premise.
so You can arrive at any result (at will) using false premise
Give me a fact, I can prove and disprove it using false premise.
Here's a free course to LOGIC, that will help your Proof writing
https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction
Here's a good discussion on why you can deduce anything from false statement
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/uhpom/why_is_it_assumed_that_a_false_statement_implies/

> I didnt ask to see what they said im asking For proof that what they said is 100% accurate

yes Euclid elements (entire book on proofs), Euclid's proof of Infinitude of primes, Euclid's lemma, the list is countless. Every single proof based on there rules of logic which still apply today (Modus Ponens, Modus tollens, Reducto Ad Absurdm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning#Reasoning_with_modus_ponens,_modus_tollens,_and_the_law_of_syllogism

Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback. John eats carrots. Therefore, John is a quarterback. The example’s first premise is false – there are people who eat carrots who are not quarterbacks – but the conclusion would necessarily be true, if the premises were true. In other words, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore, the argument is “valid”, but not “sound”. This theory of deductive reasoning – also known as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic

Now why am i giving you logic lessons? Inductive and Deductive reasoning strictly follows axioms of logic, You can deduce anything.

> Im just asking you for proof that what you're saying is accurate.
In your proof: You assumed God (which could be true or false) and deduced that the model fits General Relativity.
1) You assumed God (true or false) I don't mind.
2) You used rules (math and logic)
3) You explained relativity in time on God's throne using General Relativity.
First of all, your proof is valid. But you have an assumption, there's a 50/50 chance, there's a god or not. Regardless, Your proof is valid. The problem occurs with the second part where there's a contradiction.
[Contradiction], If you say (all of ) GR is true, then you say BigBang is True so is Cosmic Microwave Background. That implies, Earth was formed after 9.1 billion years of Bigbang.
Explicitly; Universe began at T, Earth at T+9.1b

For a solid argument, try to assume GR in your premise (we know GR is true) and arrive at your interpretation of the phenomenon.
show GR implies Quranic predictions

> Edit:And you said the OP didnt understand physics id like to know how you got to that conclusion?
i'm sorry where did i mention that i forgot?

r/askphilosophy • comment
2 points • Mauss22

I mention some resources here and here. The Pospesel PROP and PRED books are the one's I am most familiar with. The accompanying software might make them good for self-study purposes. From the PRED book, IIRC there are a couple weaker tangential chapters that touch on some more advanced applications. Also, her name is escaping me at the moment but there is a prof that uploaded logic lecture/supplement on YouTube that use Pospesel books, so you can find virtual guides if the going gets tough.

Of the free resources, either of the two Stanford MOOCs, Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking, would also be good. With those, you'll have video lectures, quizes, etc. to guide you through the material.

r/askphilosophy • comment
5 points • Mauss22

Free:

Stanford's Intro to logic - w/ Free online tools for completing exercises.

Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises

Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide

Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook

J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools

Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Not Free or Kinda Free:

Gensler's Introduction to Logic - Book not free, but Free online tools

Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred) - Book includes useful software for additional logic exercises

r/classicwow • comment
1 points • hipiotu

> Thanks, already knew that

then use it.

> I didn't, Blizzard did.

no, you said "x is not important, what is important now is ..".

> Not sure what you are trying to say here but the journey is plenty difficult as is. Much harder than retail.

read it, again and again. and again. i guess the wheels have a slow start but you'll get it in the end. i believe in you.

> People used to tank with 2h in Vanilla. If you can find any proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

[you make an assumption and want me to find proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)? i'm guessing you were hit in the head and never recovered. probably 90% of videos from vanilla are showing tanks with shields. its not even funny how retarded this paragraph is.

> As in anything that they aren't maxed out for. It's like freaking out that someone is having an easy time in Scholo when they are full tier 1 vs running it in pre blue set. It's a skewed situation from the start.

i guess reading is a challenge for you. maybe posting again will help: "btw the guy tanking in the clip has been tanking from DM up to SM with a 2h. you can find the vods in the link provided. so he did it even before having "THE BEST GEAR IN THE GAME!!!!!!111one"

> It's not bullshit, it's accurate to 1.12.

it is absolute bulshit since there is no 1.12 official patch notes and have mark kern on tape saying that blizzard lost the data and recovered some from nostalrius team. which links up to the fact that they have no official patch notes for vanilla and tbc on site. but hey, how about we ignore that since it can be actual evidence as opposed to "blizzard said so, it must be true". let me share a secret with you besides the fact that you're a pretentious idiot with no grasp of how a silogism or burden of proof actually works: yes, companies do lie when it suits them. they manipulate markets, audiences and bent rules. shocking, i know :). like when blizzard deleted bug reports from bfa beta that they couldn't/wont fix. or when they repost videos on youtube to hide the negative replies. or when they ban entire guilds because their own staff made a mistake. mad conspiracies, i know :)

> Good job saying nothing. If you don't like 1.12, don't play Classic. It's that simple

good job congratulating yourself. that's an exact copy from your unsubstantiated crap. you don't like your own shit? ironic. so, once more, if you don't like my writing, stop reading it. it's that simple.

> I don't know what you mean. Where did who learn what? And even then, the numbers are correct. Not based on pserver data, based on actual 1.12.

yes, elusive 1.12 that has no backup besides "blizzard said so". also, conveniently enough, with no official patch notes.

> People used to do that in Vanilla. There are a few bosses, like the Elemental in WC that actually required a shield. People forgetting after 15 years and knowing more about how the game works is going to make it seems easier.

sure they did, youtube and warcraftmovies is full of clips with players 2h tanking from deadmines up to lich king. oh wait, those are dks. and they're from wrath onward. however, once again, here's how to hyperlink since you seem to forget. dont be shy, share the videos(yes plural) that can back up your assertions.

> None of your 'arguments' have any validity.

none of YOUR 'arguments' have any validity. see? it's easy. also stupid since you need to back that up and all you can provide is "no, you!" attitude

> Blizzard chose 1.12, that's what's being used, no matter how much you whinge

just because you're emotionally challenged doesn't mean that ppl whinge

> There have been several posts over the past few days showing the damage numbers matching Vanilla videos.

yes, tbc videos.

> Might want to take an English class.

let me know when you take this so i can start up my english class :)

r/askphilosophy • comment
4 points • Mauss22

Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises & interactive community; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Free Modal Logic: http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/\~frank/MLHandbook//

Free Software: Carnap!, Truth Table Gen, Taut (prop/pred)

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). If you buy Pospesel's, I found this prof's page. She uploads videos using the software, solving proofs, etc.

r/askphilosophy • comment
4 points • Mauss22

On my way out, but briefly.

One option is to just power through, mindful of the limits. It'll help to familiarize yourself with the notation, even if the details are difficult to follow. You'll be required to take some formal logic for your program. But if you're looking to get ahead of the game, there are some online resources that may be useful. I compile some of those resources here. Quoting that:

>Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.
>
>Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). [Karen Howe's has her logic stuff online using Pospesel's books.]
>
>Common Symbols: here
>
>Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here

Routledge has a guide to the Tractatus that could be helpful. Anscombe's guide has a glossary with some of the common symbols. I haven't watched, but there's this lecture video on YouTube re logic in the T.. hope that helps

r/askphilosophy • comment
3 points • Mauss22

Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred).

Common Symbols: here

Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here [<== edit: these are what you're looking for]

Formal Fallacies: non sequitur - can be used to refer to conclusions that do not follow from premises; folks usually add (a) denying the antecedent and (b) affirming the consequent.

(In)formal Fallacies: Most lists are non-exhaustive. Here's one and another.

Caution: Unclear whether learning about fallacies--especially just the names--is useful. From IEP:

>"It is commonly claimed that giving a fallacy a name and studying it will help the student identify the fallacy in the future and will steer them away from using the fallacy in their own reasoning. As Steven Pinker says in The Stuff of Thought (p. 129),
>
>If a language provides a label for a complex concept, that could make it easier to think about the concept, because the mind can handle it as a single package when juggling a set of ideas, rather than having to keep each of its components in the air separately. It can also give a concept an additional label in long-term memory, making it more easily retrivable than ineffable concepts or those with more roundabout verbal descriptions.
>
>For pedagogical purposes, researchers in the field of fallacies disagree about the following topics: which name of a fallacy is more helpful to students' understanding; whether some fallacies should be de-emphasized in favor of others; and which is the best taxonomy of the fallacies. Fallacy theory is criticized by some teachers of informal reasoning for its over-emphasis on poor reasoning rather than good reasoning. Do colleges teach the Calculus by emphasizing all the ways one can make mathematical mistakes? The critics want more emphasis on the forms of good arguments and on the implicit rules that govern proper discussion designed to resolve a difference of opinion. But there has been little systematic study of which emphasis is more successful.
>
>The controversy here is the extent to which it is better to teach students what Schwartz calls "the critical instrument" than to teach the fallacy-label approach. Is the fallacy-label approach better for some kinds of fallacies than others? If so, which others?

r/askphilosophy • comment
2 points • Mauss22

Free logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Free Software: Carnap!, Truth Table Gen, Taut (prop/pred)

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). If you buy Pospesel's, I stumbled across this prof's page. She uploads videos using the software, solving proofs, etc.

r/askphilosophy • comment
3 points • Mauss22

Beginner friendly Intro: https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments/. I've got Hughes Critical Thinking on my shelf. It seemed fine, but the critical thinking course was designed to be way too easy, so I don't know if I got much out of it.

Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Modal Logic: http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/\~frank/MLHandbook//

Free Software: Carnap!, Truth Table Gen, Taut (prop/pred)

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). If you buy Pospesel's, I stumbled across this prof's page. She uploads videos using the software, solving proofs, etc.

Common Symbols: here

Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here

(In)formal Fallacies: Most lists are non-exhaustive. Here's one and another.

r/askphilosophy • comment
2 points • Mauss22

I've come across rather inelegant slogans like fallacy of the wrong level.

Cautionary note: Building an inventory of informal fallacy labels could be useless, even an impediment, if those committing them to memory don't also spend sufficient time learning how to reason well and spot bad reasoning, or (if being used dialogically) if they don't sufficiently explain why the relevant reasoning was bad. From IEP:

>"It is commonly claimed that giving a fallacy a name and studying it will help the student identify the fallacy in the future and will steer them away from using the fallacy in their own reasoning. As Steven Pinker says in The Stuff of Thought (p. 129),
>
>If a language provides a label for a complex concept, that could make it easier to think about the concept, because the mind can handle it as a single package when juggling a set of ideas, rather than having to keep each of its components in the air separately. It can also give a concept an additional label in long-term memory, making it more easily retrivable than ineffable concepts or those with more roundabout verbal descriptions.
>
>For pedagogical purposes, researchers in the field of fallacies disagree about the following topics: which name of a fallacy is more helpful to students' understanding; whether some fallacies should be de-emphasized in favor of others; and which is the best taxonomy of the fallacies. Fallacy theory is criticized by some teachers of informal reasoning for its over-emphasis on poor reasoning rather than good reasoning. Do colleges teach the Calculus by emphasizing all the ways one can make mathematical mistakes? The critics want more emphasis on the forms of good arguments and on the implicit rules that govern proper discussion designed to resolve a difference of opinion. But there has been little systematic study of which emphasis is more successful.
>
>The controversy here is the extent to which it is better to teach students what Schwartz calls "the critical instrument" than to teach the fallacy-label approach. Is the fallacy-label approach better for some kinds of fallacies than others? If so, which others?

More Logic resources:

Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Free Software: Carnap!

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). [Edit: if you buy Pospesel's, I stumbled across this prof's page. She uploads videos using the software, solving proofs, etc.]

Common Symbols: here

Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here

(In)formal Fallacies: Most lists are non-exhaustive. Here's one and another.

r/askphilosophy • comment
2 points • Mauss22

Beginner friendly Intro: https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments/. I've got Hughes Critical Thinking on my shelf. It seemed fine, but the critical thinking course was designed to be way too easy, so I don't know if I got much out of it.

Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.

Modal Logic: http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/\~frank/MLHandbook//

Free Software: Carnap!, Truth Table Gen, Taut (prop/pred)

Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). If you buy Pospesel's, I stumbled across this prof's page. She uploads videos using the software, solving proofs, etc.

Common Symbols: here

Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here

(In)formal Fallacies: Most lists are non-exhaustive. Here's one and another.

r/learnprogramming • post
1 points • Lesabotsy
Computer science study plan - Java Focused

Trying to give back to the community, it's not much, just a compilation of links but I hope it can help. Study plan based on teachyourselfcs.com. I replaced the programming, algorithms part and added more math as my math knowledge is/was flawed. When done here, just head back to the website and follow along. You can even do everything there if you have time or want to. TYCS is an amazing resource but it works best for people who already have some experience. SICP for instance is so hard it might scare newbies out of programming for good. These change are meant to correct that so that even a complete beginner can still learn from it. Why so much math? Well the objective is to become a computer scientist that can potentially get a job a the big four, you need math for that. Start with the it, take your time, everything will be easier later. Good luck ...

PS: The Computer Science: Programming with a Purpose course from Princeton is not online yet, will update the link when it's live. I studied the book, it should be as good as it’s taught by writers.

READING PREPARATION

MATHEMATICS

READINGS

INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTER SCIENCE AND PROGRAMMING

PREPARATION

MAIN

READINGS

ALGORITHMS & DATA STRUCTURES

READINGS

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

READINGS

MORE READINGS

EXTRAS

INTERVIEW PREPARATION

Readings

r/RealSchool • post
1 points • scavagesavage
Learn some Computer Science!

Credit - u/ewig94

UPDATE - README FIRST! Guys, come on! This is by no means a "one size fits all" curriculum, nor am I an evil creature trying to misguide those new in this field! This is my PERSONAL roadmap, adapted to reflect my background, situation, and preferences. The main reason I posted this list and the original one is simply to get feedback and guidance from all of you, fantastic people! If anyone wants to change and use this list as their own study plan, feel free to do so. But remember there's a huge amount of such curated lists all over the internet (which I used myself to create this personal one!), as many have mentioned in the comments.

&gt;I've recently posted a list of resources I want to use as a self-taught CS "curriculum" and got some fantastic feedback! Thank you all for your kind and thoughtful suggestions! Here is the updated list based on the feedback you provided! Any future updates will be applied here.

A little bit of clarification (apparently needed!): I am a young physician and at the same time a big fan of CS since I was in high-school! I don't want to learn computer science or programming just to get a job, I already have one :) Also I don't care if it takes a few years to complete even the first 5 steps.

&gt;To read my full explanation and see the old list, please check out my original post.

&amp;#x200B;

[I'll study some of the math during steps 0 and 1, but to keep it simple, I've put it as step 2.]

Step 0: "Coding"

&amp;#x200B;

Step 1: "Programming"

&amp;#x200B;

Step 2: Mathematics

Extra, non-required math (just in case, because I like math!):

&amp;#x200B;

Step 3: Algorithms &amp; Data Structures

&amp;#x200B;

Step 4: Computer Architecture/Systems

&amp;#x200B;

Note: The following 5 steps are optional and not as "required" as the previous ones.

&amp;#x200B;

Extra Step 1: Operating Systems

&amp;#x200B;

Extra Step 2: Computer Networking

&amp;#x200B;

Extra Step 3: Databases

&amp;#x200B;

Extra Step 4: Languages &amp; Compilers

&amp;#x200B;

Extra Step 5: Distributed Systems

&amp;#x200B;

r/KotakuInAction • comment
1 points • mnemosyne-0002

Archives for the links in comments:


I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Ask not what kek can do for you. Ask what you can do for kek. - John F. Kekidy ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

r/learnprogramming • post
1 points • ewig94
My (5+5)-step self-taught CS curriculum [Updated]

I've recently posted a list of resources I want to use as a self-taught CS "curriculum" and got some fantastic feedback! Thank you all for your kind and thoughtful suggestions! Here is the updated list based on the feedback you provided! Any future updates will be applied here. To read full explanations and see the old list, please check out my original post.

&#x200B;

Step 0: "Coding"

&#x200B;

Step 1: "Programming"

&#x200B;

Step 2: Mathematics

Extra, nonrequired math (just in case, because I like math!):

&#x200B;

Step 3: Algorithms & Data Structures

&#x200B;

Step 4: Computer Architecture/Systems

&#x200B;

Note: The following 5 steps are optional and not as "required" as the previous ones.

&#x200B;

Extra Step 1: Operating Systems

&#x200B;

Extra Step 2: Computer Networking

&#x200B;

Extra Step 3: Databases

&#x200B;

Extra Step 4: Languages & Compilers

&#x200B;

Extra Step 5: Distributed Systems

&#x200B;

That's it! Again, any feedback would be appreciated!

r/learnprogramming • post
1 points • ewig94
My 10-step self-taught CS curriculum - any recommendations?

Hi, everyone!

I've had a great passion for computer science and coding since high school, but I chose medicine eventually and I've recently graduated as a physician.

Due to some changes in my situation, I'm gonna have a few hours of free time each day for the next 2 or 3 years. I decided to use this opportunity and learn CS as my serious "hobby"; both to improve my creativity and problem-solving skills and to create something out of my "medical software/website" ideas that come to my mind every once in a while. My goal is not getting a job as a software engineer, I just love CS per se and simply enjoy learning it! To this end, I made my personal curriculum, but I'm not 100% confident if that's the ideal study plan to learn CS.

Each step has one "recommended course" (often the one recommended by this great guide: Teach Yourself Computer Science), but given my non-technical background, I think it would be difficult for me to dive right into those courses, so I have gathered a few "intermediate" courses for each step as some sort of introduction/backup to take before/instead of the recommended course.

Math is a special subject for me. After 7+ years of studying medicine, it's inevitable to forget most of the math I had learned back in high-school. So I need a deep and comprehensive review. I will be (re-)studying high-school math (3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 in the list below) along with the first 3 steps of the curriculum and before getting to the actual "Step 3".

&#x200B;

Step 0: "Coding"

I know there are lots of alternatives for learning web development, but I like the way this guy teaches. Alternatives (just in case): W3Schools Online Web Tutorials, freeCodeCamp and its Youtube tutorials for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and so on...

&#x200B;

Step 1: "Programming"

&#x200B;

Step 2: Computer Architecture/Systems

&#x200B;

Step 3: Mathematics

Time for serious stuff! I'm not really sure about the order/content or even if by taking previous courses I'm ready to take the next ones:

I don't know whether I "have to" take the following courses or I'll be OK moving on without learning these topics. Of course, I can take them later on if necessary.

&#x200B;

Step 4: Algorithms & Data Structures

&#x200B;

Step 5: Operating Systems

&#x200B;

Step 6: Computer Networking [I couldn't find a high-quality resource for this step, any input would be appreciated!]

&#x200B;

Step 7: Databases

&#x200B;

Step 8: Languages & Compilers

&#x200B;

Step 9: Distributed Systems

&#x200B;

Thanks for reading... Any suggestions and recommendations on the selection or the order/priority of these resources and steps would be much appreciated!

PS: Sorry for my poor English!

r/learnprogramming • post
1 points • ewig94
My 10-step self-taught CS curriculum - any recommendations?

Hi, everyone!

I've had a great passion for computer science and coding since high school, but I chose medicine eventually and I've recently graduated as a physician.

Due to some changes in my situation, I'm gonna have a few hours of free time each day for the next 2 or 3 years. I decided to use this opportunity and learn CS as my serious "hobby"; both to improve my creativity and problem-solving skills and to create something out of my "medical software/website" ideas that come to my mind every once in a while. My goal is not getting a job as a software engineer, I just love CS per se and simply enjoy learning it! To this end, I made my personal curriculum, but I'm not 100% confident if that's the ideal study plan to learn CS.

Each step has one "recommended course" (often the one recommended by this great guide: Teach Yourself Computer Science), but given my non-technical background, I think it would be difficult for me to dive right into those courses, so I have gathered a few "intermediate" courses for each step as some sort of introduction/backup to take before/instead of the recommended course.
Math is a special subject for me. After 7+ years of studying medicine, it's inevitable to forget most of the math I had learned back in high-school. So I need a deep and comprehensive review. I will be (re-)studying high-school math (3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 in the list below) along with the first 3 steps of the curriculum and before getting to the actual "Step 3".

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

Thanks for reading... Any suggestions and recommendations on the selection or the order/priority of these resources and steps would be much appreciated!

PS: Sorry for my poor English!