# 学生对 斯坦福大学 提供的 逻辑学导论 的评价和反馈

4.5
518 个评分
109 个审阅

## 课程概述

This course is an introduction to Logic from a computational perspective. It shows how to encode information in the form of logical sentences; it shows how to reason with information in this form; and it provides an overview of logic technology and its applications - in mathematics, science, engineering, business, law, and so forth....

## 热门审阅

##### JS

Aug 21, 2018

This course was so helpful. I think I now understand the fundamentals of mathematical logic. I truly recommend this course to anyone who is interested in studying logic!

##### SC

May 01, 2018

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

## 76 - 逻辑学导论 的 100 个评论（共 103 个）

Dec 01, 2016

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.

Sep 18, 2017

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 !

Apr 20, 2018

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.

Mar 02, 2017

Bare bones. Pros: mostly clear, Cons: it may require outside supplements to fully understand and complete the assignments.

Aug 20, 2018

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.

Apr 20, 2019

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.

Nov 22, 2017

Very interesting subject matter. Most chapters are very well presented and explained, allowing the student to explore other uses of the content. The chapters involving Fitch proofs are pretty useless or frustrating, depending on the student's level of commitment. Little explanation of what is expected, what procedures to follow, where one has erred along the way...

Jan 09, 2018

not having videos on this course is just lazy. It's the internet !! You do them once and they last for a life time!! No maintenance and all. So why not have video lectures to this course? The textbook is quite technical, compared to other texts that i have encountered, lectures would have been quite helpful.

Also, please note that a certificate for this course costs 95\$!!! that's an outrage!!! Is a course with no video really worth that much??

Feb 21, 2017

Logic can be fun, but this class pretty much kills that spirit by burying it under pretty horrendous and tedious formalization. An intro to logic should be considerably simpler, and with more interesting content and exercises.

Dec 11, 2016

overall: some weeks were fun, some not

in some weeks are too many chapters and exercises. I actually think that the exercises are too complicated compared to the examples in the chapters. Sometimes are the explanations in the chapters not sufficient.

It would be helpful to know the name of a proof e.g. Perch's Law or law of (the) excluded middle. This would help to find more information and help.

Nov 16, 2017

there is no videos, just texts... it's like to read a book, what's better than nothing

Dec 08, 2016

I initially found the week two section very frustrating due to the absence of worded examples (real sentences) that might've appeared alongside the logic-symbols that were being defined. I would put it down to a personal fault, if it were not the case that I grasped the notation fully within minutes of finding another source of learning.

Jan 15, 2017

Old style.

Jan 14, 2017

I would like more tasks to help learn, it's also really really easy to guess your way to the right answer. A _lot_ of concepts, words and specific tools are introduced, with not much opportunity to actually use them meaningfully and feel that one has actually learned a skill (as opposed to temporarily remembered the concepts for the quiz). Was nice not to have to watch videos though, and the slides are good.

May 27, 2017

As for someone who needs to understand it more, I recommend part about Digital Circuites as I have understanding of most of its basics from this course. Also sorority word, entailment and boolean, non-boolean models. The rest of material dis not give me explanation sufficient to have full understanding. I would need more video visualization of all topics!

Jul 26, 2017

I got stuck at week 4: the exercises are way too hard for me and the fitch system is badly explained, with just a few examples. The only problems I solved were those I found solved on Google. I guess this course is very interesting if you have some knowledge of logic already, but otherwise it's too difficult.

Jan 24, 2019

Sep 27, 2016

While the content of this course is interesting and well-structured, the way it's presented on Coursera has major problems.

As it stands, this is not really a Coursera course; it's simply a Coursera wrapper around some links to a third-party website. All of the things that make Coursera valuable - videos with inline quizzes, ability to download content, the exam format, peer assessment - are missing. In fact, having Coursera as a wrapper actually makes it more difficult to use, because additional clicks are required to access any resource, and nothing is accessible offline. If this course is to be offered on Coursera, it needs major rework to take advantage of the platform.

This is a real shame, because there is some great content here and obviously a lot of care has been taken to structure it carefully for the original Stanford course. For that reason, recommend using the Stanford web site directly.

Sep 30, 2016

Personally, I strongly doubt that putting a bunch of slides and a few auto-graded exercises is the best way to learn about logic. Why then Stanford University doesn't just email his students this material and let them work on their own instead of doing lectures?

I don't see the added value at all. Apart from being able to discuss the topic in the forum with other online students, what's the advantage in comparison to buying a book and doing the exercises there?

This course to me started off with the wrong foot. No info on the starting date of the course until the end of September, when instead the course was supposed to start at the beginning of the month. And now the complete absence of videos. This to me seems more like a fuck up on the side of Coursera, which didn't find an agreement with Stanford University so no material had been produced until now. Then, in order not to completely ruin its reputation, Coursera put a bunch of slides calling it an online course and expecting people to buy this lie.

I might be wrong and this could be only my theory and nothing else, however, I won't recommend Coursera to anyone after this. Very bad feedback so far, and the funny thing is that I had big expectations before the start.

Hope this will be taken as constructive feedback and not as a complaint.

Jan 09, 2018

The interface of the course is not as expected and it dampens my zeal for doing the course

Jan 10, 2017

The use of external tool for no good reason + the lack of written summary makes the course really hard to follow.

Apr 24, 2018

impossible course, bad examples, exercises not in accordance with the material.

Feb 20, 2017

Really I haven't seen a course with slides till now,

No one will be interested to take a course like this, with some slides to read from.

Jul 22, 2017

Dont Understand. embarassing..

Apr 22, 2018

I cannot in good conscious give this course even remotely close to a good score. The information provided is "okay" at best for solving the problems. It's nothing special, but it does get the job done. Having said that, you're probably wondering why I would give this such a low score then?

The mathematical problems. The exercises are absolutely atrocious in their format, often resulting in highly un-intuitive methods needed to figure out how to submit your answers and needlessly clunky interfaces. It's absolutely unacceptable that I have to click on a different option to allow the assignment to register that I have finished my entry. Often times I'll find myself struggling simply to give an answer because the clicking process (for the Fitch system being the first example) to give the intended answer. This is exacerbated by the fact that when filling in problems. It expects EXACT answers including ensuring that you have kept the correct spacing as well with no ability to eliminate whitespace for your answers, resulting in a ton of confusion on whether you got an answer correct or incorrect based on the whims of the site itself.

Either make the problems simpler to answer, or have the answering format far less restrictive in this regard and more intuitive. I went through the first two weeks fine, but the later ones become incredibly irritating. To the point that I'm not finishing the course until these issues are fixed.