30 апр. 2018 г.
Pros:\n\n1.good contents\n\n2.good exercises and interesting puzzles\n\n3.good examples\n\nCons:\n\n1.No video\n\n2. need more examples
18 янв. 2018 г.
excellent teaching, detailed analysis, interesting theories, mind blowing facts, all in all it was my best experience online
автор: Alex W•
18 авг. 2018 г.
A pain if completing this course when the session not started yet. Without forum talking about solutions to exercise, usually in some exercises you could only stare at the screen for several hours, fell in deep despair, and eventually came up an answer by luck. Not a good experience, but the material is good though, if not considering the difficutly of understanding the text in the later lessons
автор: Tage M•
15 янв. 2017 г.
Great introduction to logic.
One thing I'd have appreciated to see is a set of accompanying recorded video lectures. My experience is that I find it easier in term of efforts and faster in term of time to absorb taught concepts when I engage both my hearing and sight senses while watching a lecture than reading only.
автор: Chunping X•
8 мар. 2021 г.
The course is well structured and I've learned some valuable concepts of logic. That said there're two thing I thought could be made better.
In some chapters, it's short of examples as explanation.
No introduction of how to use Fitch tool that could cause frustration for some who are new to it.
автор: Sihyung L•
31 мая 2020 г.
Some concepts in Week 9 were not very understandable, but other weeks were good. I thank all who have contributed and prepared this course. I wish that in the next version of this course, there are some exercises using real-world logic tools, such as SAT solvers.
автор: Ian A•
3 мар. 2017 г.
This is a really good course. My only issue was I found some of the weeks quite a bit harder than others. It was helpful to look at the notes for each week in advance to figure out which ones would be tougher and allow for that.
автор: David G M•
22 апр. 2020 г.
I struggled real hard with some proofs. The main problem was the lack of examples or tutorials on how to use the rules of inference. Perhaps one or two videos could help??
автор: Yiye D•
16 июня 2017 г.
Somehow difficult in the last several weeks. As almost all the materials are all in words, students may sometimes feel bored seeing all lines and complex tables.
автор: Samuel O•
24 апр. 2019 г.
I feel like some things could have been explained better, maybe a better description of how the fitch tool worked. Other than that, it was a great course!
автор: Chatziiosifidis A•
11 сент. 2017 г.
Very interesting course
But some parts are not just to technical but rather for technicians and not for persons looking more into the theoretical aspects
автор: Supinder S•
5 мая 2019 г.
Course is fine but there isn't much material for INTRODUCTION. Good Math Skills Required.
автор: Jakob V•
24 янв. 2017 г.
Videos to explain the materials would be much more useful than how it is right now...
автор: Krzysztof M•
5 мар. 2018 г.
The Fitch tool can be easily hacked if now premise are in the task. Please fix this!
автор: Francisco J M M•
17 нояб. 2016 г.
This has been a very interesting course, introducing the basic of logic reasoning.
автор: Kit H M•
25 янв. 2019 г.
The course is great, but the grading system is always broken.
11 дек. 2017 г.
6 окт. 2017 г.
A little difficult to understand.
7 янв. 2017 г.
автор: Dhruv A•
1 сент. 2020 г.
Quite engaging for a predominantly text-based course. However, what I struggled with towards the end was determining application areas for the theory that I was going through. After completing the proofs of Week 8, I lost momentum and the drive to want to imbibe more theory without any outlet for application. This is obviously not to say that there aren't application areas. However, the course can do more to communicate those to the students.
автор: Eugenio L•
20 авг. 2018 г.
I have found it not extremely clear in the latter part of the course, perhaps more examples would help. Most of the section 1 to 9 (from propositional logic to relational logic and Herbrand logic) are quite clear and straight-forward. An historical background of who, when and why theories and computing methodologies were elaborated would certainly increase interest.
автор: Roger C•
1 дек. 2016 г.
I love the content overall. However, I'm very disappointed that there are no video lectures at all. Ironically, I could find some old video lectures of this course on YouTube. The difficulty of this course warrants video lectures to convey many concepts and techniques, such as the Fitch system.
Hopefully you can add video lectures back to this course.
автор: Soledad A•
6 июня 2021 г.
As someone who learns by doing I found the lack of examples to explain certain concepts really frustrating, and whenever examples were provided they were usually really simplistic compared to the graded exercises that we were expected to solve. It was also really difficult (impossible) to get answers from mentors in the discussion forums.
автор: Anas M•
19 апр. 2018 г.
Video demonstrations would have been more helpful. I like to feel engaged, lectured to and encouraged to communicate with fellow students. I feel that this class really helped me a lot, but then I began to lose interest very quickly because of its format.
автор: Luis J•
20 апр. 2019 г.
Unfortunately there are several problems with the external tool, although the course is very complete, the presentations of the slides are very short, they would need more development, to be more friendly with the reader.
автор: Digby D•
12 дек. 2017 г.
A solid entry-level course about Formal Logic. May be more enticing to students intimidated by the more math-based approach of Intro to Mathematical Thinking (also by Stanford University).
18 сент. 2017 г.
the examples are far from enough! For a non-native speaker,it's quite hard to learn all these notions .please add some examples into it !