[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:04.22,0:00:09.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the last lecture I explained what\Npropositional connectives are, I described
Dialogue: 0,0:00:09.44,0:00:14.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a particular category of propositional\Nconnectives that we called truth
Dialogue: 0,0:00:14.20,0:00:19.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functional connectives, and I gave you an\Nexample of one truth functional
Dialogue: 0,0:00:19.03,0:00:25.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connective. And, another word, and in\NEnglish isn't always used to mean a truth
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.18,0:00:30.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functional connective, but sometimes it\Nis. And one thing I'd like to point out
Dialogue: 0,0:00:30.41,0:00:36.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right now, is that there are other words\Nin English that can be used to indicate
Dialogue: 0,0:00:36.35,0:00:42.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the very same truth functional connective\Nthat the word and is used to indicate. For
Dialogue: 0,0:00:42.58,0:00:48.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,instance, think about the English words\Nalso, moreover, furthermore, and but. Now,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:48.36,0:00:55.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you might think the word and, and the word\Nbut" mean two very different things. If I
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.64,0:01:02.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say Walter is poor and happy, that seems\Nto mean something very different from
Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.20,0:01:08.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Walter is poor but happy. In particular,\Nwhen I say Walter is poor but happy, I'm
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.64,0:01:15.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suggesting that there is contrast between\Nhis poverty and his happiness. But when I
Dialogue: 0,0:01:15.40,0:01:21.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say Walter is poor and happy, I'm not\Nsuggesting any such contrast. Still,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:21.27,0:01:27.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whatever contrast there might be between\Nhis poverty and his happiness doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.70,0:01:34.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,effect the truth table for the truth\Nfunctional connective but. Let's consider
Dialogue: 0,0:01:34.65,0:01:41.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when it would be true to say Walter is\Npoor but happy. To show you what I mean,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:41.38,0:01:48.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about the words" but and, and," let's go\Nback to the truth table for the truth
Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.79,0:01:53.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functional connective and. So remember, if\Nyou have two propositions, p1 and p2, and
Dialogue: 0,0:01:53.16,0:01:59.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you use the truth functional connective\Nand to put them together to make another
Dialogue: 0,0:01:59.09,0:02:04.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition, the proposition p1 and p2.\NAnd now you wanna know when is that new
Dialogue: 0,0:02:04.80,0:02:10.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition, the proposition p1 and p2,\Nwhen is that going to be true? Well, the
Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.60,0:02:19.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,answer is it's going to be true only when\Np1 is true and p2 is true. In any other
Dialogue: 0,0:02:19.85,0:02:30.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scenario, the proposition p1 and p2 is\Ngonna be false. Let's take an example so I
Dialogue: 0,0:02:30.19,0:02:40.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can illustrate. Let's suppose, for p1 we\Nuse the proposition Walter is poor, and
Dialogue: 0,0:02:40.27,0:02:50.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for p2 we use the proposition Walter is\Nhappy, then we use the truth functional
Dialogue: 0,0:02:50.55,0:02:55.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connective, and, to put those put two\Npropositions together into a new
Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.37,0:03:09.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition and the new proposition is\Ngonna be Walter is poor and happy. Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:09.40,0:03:15.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, when it going to be true that Walter\Nis poor and happy? Well, if it's true that
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.74,0:03:21.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Walter is poor and it's also true that\NWalter is happy then its going to be true
Dialogue: 0,0:03:21.100,0:03:28.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that Walter is poor and happy. But, if\Nit's false that Walter is poor, then it is
Dialogue: 0,0:03:28.10,0:03:34.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not going to be true that Walter is poor\Nand happy. And if it's false that Walter
Dialogue: 0,0:03:34.36,0:03:40.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is happy, then it's not going to be true\Nthat Walter is poor and happy. So the
Dialogue: 0,0:03:40.32,0:03:46.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition Walter is poor and happy is\Ngonna be true, only when Walter is poor is
Dialogue: 0,0:03:46.78,0:03:53.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true and Walter is happy is true. In any\Nother possible scenario, the proposition
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.40,0:04:00.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Walter is poor and happy will end up being\Nfalse. So, lets compare that to the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:00.53,0:04:09.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition that we get by combining\NWalter is poor and Walter is happy with
Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.64,0:04:18.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the connective, but, Walter is poor but\Nhappy. Now, when is it gonna be true to
Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.44,0:04:23.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say Walter is poor but happy? Well, it's\Nnot gonna be true to say Walter is poor
Dialogue: 0,0:04:23.61,0:04:28.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but happy in any situation where it's\Nfalse that Walter is poor. Right? If it's
Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.72,0:04:33.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,false that Walter is poor, then it's also\Ngonna be false that Walter is poor but
Dialogue: 0,0:04:33.96,0:04:39.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happy. It's also not gonna be true to say\NWalter is poor but happy in any situation
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.40,0:04:44.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where it's false that Walter is happy. If\Nit's false that Walter is happy, then it's
Dialogue: 0,0:04:44.83,0:04:50.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gonna be false that Walter is poor but\Nhappy. So when is it going to be true that
Dialogue: 0,0:04:50.95,0:04:56.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Walter is poor but happy? The only\Npossible situation where it could be true
Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.21,0:05:01.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is the situation where it's true that\NWalter is poor and it's also true that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.53,0:05:06.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Walter is happy. Now, you might think,\Nwait a second. When I say Walter is poor
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.79,0:05:12.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but happy, I'm saying more than just that\NWalter is poor and that Walter is happy.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.39,0:05:18.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm also suggesting a contrast between his\Npoverty and his happines. And maybe that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:18.20,0:05:24.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suggestion is misleading, maybe poor\Npeople are often happy. But notice, what
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.64,0:05:32.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you say can be misleading even if it's\Ntrue. For example, suppose someone comes
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.24,0:05:39.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,up to me with a car that's sputtering.\NThey might say, do you know where there's
Dialogue: 0,0:05:39.24,0:05:44.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a gas station around here? I need to fill\Nup this car with gas. And I might say,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:44.60,0:05:50.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's a gas station just around the\Ncorner. Now, what I say might be true,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.29,0:05:55.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there might really be a gas station just\Naround the corner even if I know that,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:55.26,0:06:00.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that gas station has been closed for three\Nyears and has no gas. So, what I say is
Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.71,0:06:05.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,misleading because I've lead them to\Nbelieve falsely, that they can get gas if
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.95,0:06:11.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they can just get their car around the\Ncorner. But even though what I've said is
Dialogue: 0,0:06:11.33,0:06:16.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,misleading, it's still true because there\Nis a gas station around the corner, only a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.91,0:06:24.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,closed one. So what you say can be true\Nbut misleading and I suggest that when you
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.42,0:06:30.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say Walter is poor but happy. That can be\Ntrue even if it's misleading to suggest
Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.68,0:06:36.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that poverty and happiness are somehow at\Nodds with each other. I've just said that
Dialogue: 0,0:06:36.26,0:06:41.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the word but in English can be used to\Nindicate the same truth functional
Dialogue: 0,0:06:41.23,0:06:46.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connective that the word and is sometimes\Nused to indicate. And there are other
Dialogue: 0,0:06:46.41,0:06:51.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words in English that can be used to\Nindicate that same truth functional
Dialogue: 0,0:06:51.32,0:06:56.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connective, also, furthermore, moreover,\Nand sometimes we even use the word too,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.16,0:07:01.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,too. But now I wanna introduce a term\Nthat's going to describe that truth
Dialogue: 0,0:07:01.42,0:07:07.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functional connective no matter what word\Nin ordinary language we use to indicate
Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.34,0:07:13.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that connective. The term is conjunction.\NAnd the term conjunction, as I'm using it
Dialogue: 0,0:07:13.65,0:07:20.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,here and as philosophers use it, is not\Nthe same term that grammarians use when
Dialogue: 0,0:07:20.23,0:07:26.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they talk about conjunctive terms like\Nbut, or, and, therefore. Here's something
Dialogue: 0,0:07:26.65,0:07:33.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that could help you understand what\Nconjunctions in the grammarian sense are
Dialogue: 0,0:07:33.06,0:07:39.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like. All of those terms are conjunctions\Nin the grammarian sense, but they're not
Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.52,0:07:46.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conjunctions in the philosopher's sense. A\Nconjunction in the philosopher's sense is
Dialogue: 0,0:07:46.12,0:07:52.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just the truth functional connective that\Nhas this particular truth table. You can
Dialogue: 0,0:07:52.55,0:07:58.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,use the conjunction to create a new\Nproposition out of joining two other
Dialogue: 0,0:07:58.22,0:08:04.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,propositions and that new proposition that\Nyou create using conjunction is gonna be
Dialogue: 0,0:08:04.64,0:08:10.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true, only when the other two propositions\Nare true. In any other case, the new
Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.60,0:08:16.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition is going to be false, that's\Nwhat a conjunction is. And we can use the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:16.86,0:08:22.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,symbol ampersand, like that, in order to\Nsignify conjunction. Now that we know the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.90,0:08:28.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,truth table for the conjunction, let's\Nconsider how we can use that truth table
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.83,0:08:34.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to figure out when an argument that uses\Nconjunction is valid. Consider the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:34.67,0:08:40.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument Walter is poor but happy,\Ntherefore, Walter is happy. Is that
Dialogue: 0,0:08:40.72,0:08:46.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument valid or invalid? Well, pretty\Nobviously, that argument is valid. There's
Dialogue: 0,0:08:46.37,0:08:52.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,no possible way for the premise to be true\Nwhile the conclusion is false. But, can
Dialogue: 0,0:08:52.16,0:08:57.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you see why the argument is valid using\Nthe truth table for conjunction? You
Dialogue: 0,0:08:57.61,0:09:03.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should be able to in a situation in which\Nthe premise is true, Walter is poor but
Dialogue: 0,0:09:03.63,0:09:09.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happy, there are gonna have to be two\Nother propositions that are true, namely
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.21,0:09:15.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Walter is poor and Walter is happy. So, if\Nits true that Walter is true but happy,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:15.16,0:09:21.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then its gonna have to be true that Walter\Nis happy and that's why the argument is
Dialogue: 0,0:09:21.33,0:09:27.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,valid. That's why there is no possible way\Nfor the premise to be true while the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:27.20,0:09:34.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusion is false. Let's consider some\Nother arguments that involve conjunction.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:34.58,0:09:42.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Consider the argument Walter is poor,\Nwalter is happy, therefore, Walter is poor
Dialogue: 0,0:09:42.11,0:09:48.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and happy. Is that argument valid? Clearly\Nit is. And again, you can use the truth
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.70,0:09:54.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,table for conjunctions to see why it's\Nvalid. In a situation where the first
Dialogue: 0,0:09:54.47,0:10:00.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,premise Walter is poor is true, and in\Nwhich the second premise Walter is happy
Dialogue: 0,0:10:00.46,0:10:06.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is true. In that situation, the conclusion\NWalter is poor and happy, is gonna have to
Dialogue: 0,0:10:06.76,0:10:12.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be true. So there's no possible way for\Nthe premises of that argument to both be
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.84,0:10:18.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true while the conclusion is false and so\Nthat argument is also valid. Now notice,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:18.99,0:10:25.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just as we can combine two propositions\Nwith each other using conjunction, we can
Dialogue: 0,0:10:25.18,0:10:30.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then also combine the resulting\Nproposition with another proposition using
Dialogue: 0,0:10:30.91,0:10:40.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conjunction. So, consider the proposition\NWalter is poor but happy and popular. That
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.34,0:10:46.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition uses two conjunctions to\Ncombine three other propositions into a
Dialogue: 0,0:10:46.81,0:10:53.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,single conjunctive proposition. To\Nunderstand how that works, let's look at
Dialogue: 0,0:10:53.03,0:10:59.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the truth table for that. So when is it\Ngoing to be true that Walter is poor but
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.75,0:11:06.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happy and popular? When is that going to\Nbe true? Well, if it's false that Walter
Dialogue: 0,0:11:06.51,0:11:13.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is poor, then it's definitely not going to\Nbe true that Walter is poor but happy and
Dialogue: 0,0:11:13.96,0:11:22.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,popular. So in all of these situations\Nright down here, walter is poor but happy
Dialogue: 0,0:11:22.08,0:11:30.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and popular, is gonna to be false. If it's\Nfalse that Walter is happy, then it's
Dialogue: 0,0:11:30.06,0:11:37.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,definitely not going to be true that\NWalter is poor but happy and popular, cuz
Dialogue: 0,0:11:37.22,0:11:44.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he's not gonna be happy. So, in these\Nsituations right here where it's false
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.09,0:11:51.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that Walter is happy, it's also gonna be\Nfalse that Walter is poor but happy and
Dialogue: 0,0:11:51.43,0:11:57.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,popular. And if it's false that Walter is\Npopular, then of course, it's also gonna
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.100,0:12:03.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be false that Walter is poor but happy and\Npopular. So, in this situation right here,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:03.56,0:12:09.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it'll be false that Walter is poor but\Nhappy and popular. So, is it ever gonna be
Dialogue: 0,0:12:09.36,0:12:16.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true that Walter is poor but happy and\Npopular? Yes. It'll be true just when it's
Dialogue: 0,0:12:16.24,0:12:23.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true that Walter is poor, it's true that\NWalter is happy, and it's true that Walter
Dialogue: 0,0:12:23.28,0:12:30.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is popular. That's the only situation when\Nit's gonna be true that Walter is poor but
Dialogue: 0,0:12:30.59,0:12:36.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happy and popular. In general, this is the\Nkind of truth table that we get when we
Dialogue: 0,0:12:36.95,0:12:42.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,combine three propositions using\Nconjunction. So now, considered how we can
Dialogue: 0,0:12:42.60,0:12:48.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,use the truth table for conjunctions of\Nthree propositions to figure out whether
Dialogue: 0,0:12:48.78,0:12:54.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,certain deductive arguments are valid or\Nnot. So consider the following deductive
Dialogue: 0,0:12:54.48,0:12:59.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument. From the premises Paris is the\Ncapital of France, Jakarta is the capital
Dialogue: 0,0:12:59.76,0:13:04.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of Indonesia, and Washington DC is the\Ncapital of the United States. Let's
Dialogue: 0,0:13:04.56,0:13:10.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclude Paris is the capital of France,\Nand Jakarta is the capital of Indonesia,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:10.47,0:13:15.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and Washington D.C. is the capitol of the\NUnited States. Valid or not? Well,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.94,0:13:23.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,clearly, that argument is valid and the\Ntruth table shows us why. The conclusion
Dialogue: 0,0:13:23.58,0:13:28.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Paris is the capital of France, and\NJakarta is the capital of Indonesia, and
Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.47,0:13:33.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Wash ington D.C. is the capital of the\NUnited States is true just when it's true
Dialogue: 0,0:13:33.61,0:13:39.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that Paris is the capital of France, and\Nit's also true that Jakarta is the capital
Dialogue: 0,0:13:39.02,0:13:43.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of Indonesia, and it's also true that\NWashington D.C. is the capital of the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:43.84,0:13:49.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,United States. So whenever the premises\Nare true, the conclusion is also true, and
Dialogue: 0,0:13:49.05,0:13:54.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's why that argument is valid. The\Ntruth table explains why the argument is
Dialogue: 0,0:13:54.20,0:14:01.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,valid. Now consider a different one. From\Nthe premise Mick Jagger is a singer, a
Dialogue: 0,0:14:01.07,0:14:07.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,man, and a septuagenarian. We could draw\Nthe conclusion Mick Jagger is a
Dialogue: 0,0:14:07.94,0:14:14.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,septuagenarian. Now is that argument\Nvalid? Yes, it is and the truth table for
Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.23,0:14:20.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conjunction explains why it's valid. Think\Nabout the situation in which it's true
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.26,0:14:26.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that Mick Jagger is a man, a singer, and a\Nseptuagenarian. The only situation in
Dialogue: 0,0:14:26.01,0:14:31.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which that's true is the situation in\Nwhich it's true that Mick Jagger is a man,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:31.75,0:14:37.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's true that Mick Jagger is a singer,\Nand it's true that Mick Jagger is a
Dialogue: 0,0:14:37.28,0:14:43.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,septuagenarian. But that means that if the\Npremises is true, then the conclusion has
Dialogue: 0,0:14:43.05,0:14:48.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,got to be true. The premise is only true\Nin a situation in which the conclusion is
Dialogue: 0,0:14:48.75,0:14:54.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,true and so that argument has got to be\Nvalid and the truth table for conjunction
Dialogue: 0,0:14:54.38,0:14:59.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explains why. I have said that conjunction\Ncan be used to connect two other
Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.54,0:15:05.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,propositions into a new proposition. And\Nconjunction can also be used to connect
Dialogue: 0,0:15:05.03,0:15:10.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,three other propositions into a new\Nproposition. But there's no limit to the
Dialogue: 0,0:15:10.23,0:15:13.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,number of propositions that can be\Nconnected using the truth functional
Dialogue: 0,0:15:15.12,0:15:20.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connective conjunction, or as we could\Nsay, there's no limit to the number of
Dialogue: 0,0:15:20.79,0:15:26.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,propositions that can be conjoined. You\Ncan conjoin four propositions, five
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.53,0:15:32.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,propositions, or however many you like,\Nand notice that there's a pattern to the
Dialogue: 0,0:15:32.66,0:15:38.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,truth tables for all of these\Nconjunctions. In every case, the conjoined
Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.42,0:15:44.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proposition is gonna be true only when all\Nof the propositions that are conjoined in
Dialogue: 0,0:15:44.99,0:15:50.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it are true. Now, I'ld like you to take\Nseveral minutes and look at the following
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.43,0:15:55.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,truth tables, and identify which of these\Ntruth tables are truth tables for
Dialogue: 0,0:15:55.53,0:16:00.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conjunction and which of them are not.\NWell, that's it for our discussion of
Dialogue: 0,0:16:00.62,0:16:05.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conjunction and reasoning with\Nconjunctions. In the next lecture we'll
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.38,0:16:10.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,introduce the topic of disjunction and\Nreasoning with disjunctions. See you next