|
| 28 February 2007
|
| the surprise that never was
|
ANNOUNCEMENT: A teacher announces in the class that she will take a surprise quiz in the next week.
DEFINITIONS:
1) a: exactly one i.e. ((quiz on Xday)AND(quiz on Yday)) = FALSE [for all Xday and Yday]
2) surprise: it can never be determined with 100 % confidence on which day the quiz will be held i.e. (quiz on Xday) != TRUE [for any Xday]
3) in the next week: ((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)OR(quiz on Friday)) = TRUE
CLAIM 1: One of the student gets up and says that the surprise quiz cannot be on Friday, because
CLAIM 1.(i)
If ((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)) = TRUE
Then (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
PROOF 1.(i)
Case I: (quiz on Monday) = TRUE
==> ((quiz on Monday)AND(quiz on Friday)) = FALSE [exactly one quiz]
but since (quiz on Monday) = TRUE
hence, (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
Case II: (quiz on Tuesday) = TRUE
==> ((quiz on Tuesday)AND(quiz on Friday)) = FALSE [exactly one quiz]
but since (quiz on Tuesday) = TRUE
hence, (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
Case III: (quiz on Wednesday) = TRUE
==> ((quiz on Wednesday)AND(quiz on Friday)) = FALSE [exactly one quiz]
but since (quiz on Wednesday) = TRUE
hence, (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
Case IV: (quiz on Thursday) = TRUE
==> ((quiz on Thursday)AND(quiz on Friday)) = FALSE [exactly one quiz]
but since (quiz on Thursday) = TRUE
hence, (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
Case V: ((quiz on Monday = FALSE)AND(quiz on Tuesday = FALSE)AND(quiz on Wednesday = FALSE)AND(quiz on Thursday = FALSE)) = TRUE [for completeness of all the CASES]
Let's take complement of both the sides,
==> ((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)) = FALSE
But it contradicts with our assumption
Hence, Case I to Case IV are complete representation of the given assumption.
In Case I to Case IV, (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
Hence,
If ((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)) = TRUE
Then (quiz on Friday) = FALSE
CLAIM 1.(ii)
((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)) = TRUE always
PROOF 1.(ii)
Let's prove by contradiction.
Let's assume that,
((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)) = FALSE
But,
((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)OR(quiz on Friday)) = TRUE [as per the ANNOUNCEMENT]
Hence,
(quiz on Friday) = TRUE
But, this contradicts with our definition of "surprise"
Hence, this case is not possible
Combining both the claims, we get that (quiz on Friday) = FALSE always
Hence, we can update our definition of "in the next week"
DEFINITIONS(update):
3) in the next week: ((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)) = TRUE
CLAIM 2: Assuming CLAIM 1 to be true (and updated definitions), the quiz cannot be on Thursday
CLAIM 2.(i)
If ((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)) = TRUE
Then (quiz on Thursday) = FALSE
PROOF 2.(i)
[Similar to PROOF 1.(i)]
CLAIM 2.(ii)
((quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)) = TRUE always
PROOF 2.(ii)
[Similar to PROOF 1.(ii)]
Combining both the claims, we get that (quiz on Thursday) = FALSE always
Continuing, we get
(quiz on Wednesday) = FALSE, and
(quiz on Tuesday) = FALSE
But, it was our initial assumption that
(quiz on Monday)OR(quiz on Tuesday)OR(quiz on Wednesday)OR(quiz on Thursday)OR(quiz on Friday) = TRUE
Hence,
(quiz on Monday) = TRUE
But, this contradicts with our definition of "surprise"
Hence, this case is not possible.
Hence, the ANNOUNCEMENT cannot be true.
Hence, no surprise quiz was held in the week :-)
Labels: comments, faith and temperance, intellectual, paradox, question, surprise quiz |
posted by Rohit Agarwal
  |
|
|
|
| 26 January 2007
|
| The Fountainhead
|
Not a very long time ago, when I was just hanging out at CP, I saw a bookstore. Curious as I have always been about libraries and bookstores, I decided it's now high time I pay it a visit. So, I stepped inside. And what I saw I couldn't have imagined.
Lots and lots of books. Classified into lots and lots of sections. And the prospective customers reviewing the lots and lots of books to choose which ones to pick. I mean, every book is readable. If it wasn't, why would it be published? Isn't it? So what's the use of spending so much time on choosing which ones to read? Moreover, how can anyone decide whether the book is worth the price by a mere glance at the coverpage or by reading the brief gist at the backpage? Anyways, I decided to go ahead.
Now which book to choose? I could have easily picked the first book I laid my eyes upon, but it turned out to be the ATLAS. Irritated, I went to the other end of the bookstore, only to pick up 'Harry Potter'. Irritated, I was at a loss of what to do. So I took my friend's advice. He suggested I should check out "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. So I searched for that book, and after a few tiring moments, found it. On the way to the counter, my eyes glanced at the section of books by "Osho" under the Philosophy Section. Curious again, I decided to give that a try too. If I could read Osho, I could read anything else. So I came out the bookstore richer by two books and but otherwise totally impecunious.
The night I came back, I thought I'll start with the Osho book : "The First Principle: Talks on ZEN". So I started reading it. And I still haven't been able to go beyond the second chapter. The book is all about crap. It suggests that the First Principle is something which cant be said, if done so it will become the Second Principle. Nowhere in the whole book is there a mention of what First Principle actually is. But I guess it taught be something very important in life which I can find good use of : how to beat around the bush....
So I started with the second book. By this time I had acquired knowledge that "The Fountainhead" is a highly acclaimed novel. So, enthusiastically I started the process of reading the book. This process started exactly 11 days back and finished it just yesterday. With the page count of around 700 pages, I read around 70 each day, not bad by my standards. The Review? Well here it goes.
The main characters of the story are
1. "Howard Roark", modern architect, builds to please himself, not to please others. Unwilling to compromise. Egotist. Appreciates art.
2. "Peter Keating", School topper, ace architect, popular mass appeal, works in the best architect's company, sensible and follows public sentiments.
3. "Ellsworth M. Toohey", popular sociologist, philosopher, orator, mass gatherer and mass leader, influences public easily.
4. "Gail Wynand", started penniless, by 40 was the owner of the biggest newspaper empire in the US, doesnt hesitate in using illegal ways in getting work done and loathed by the public for the same
5. "Dominique" (Female), Writer in Wynand's newspaper, very beautiful and attractive, loyal and obedient wife, dynamic and radical bachelerotte
6. "Catherine" (Female), Lives with Toohey, very soft-spoken and homely kind of a lady, doesn't-like-going-to-parties kind of a lady, down-to-earth, modest, humble, cares more about others than about self, never-complaining.
However the relations that these people share with each other are even more interesting than their individual personalities.
5 is attracted towards 2. But then she realizes that she loves 1. But she denounces 1 in public. But then one day, she marries 2. Then one day, she divorces 2 and marries 4, though she has never loved 4. In the end, 5 makes her affair with 1 public and later marries 1 after divorcing 4.
2 knows that 6 loves her, so one day asks her to marry him the next day. 6 agrees, but 2 marries 5 instead that very night.
2 is initially a very good friend of 1, but then becomes his enemy and arch-rival. But in the end, he again regains his friendship.
There are a lot of other relationships too which I guess you would like to unfold yourself. The book ends on a very predictable note with everything going as it should have.
I still dont understand why "The Fountainhead" is highly acclaimed.... And it was certainly not worth the time I spent on it... I would have rather watched 10 movies in the same amount of time and enjoyed a hundred times more...
If you want to, then read it at your own risk... Don't blame me afterwards....Labels: book, greed, intellectual |
| posted by Rohit Agarwal
|
|
|
|
| 15 January 2007
|
| God Or Science? Why Not Both?
|
The conflict between God and Science is century old and has resulted in many catastrophes over the years. However much the Science has progressed, it has not been able to explain everything. And in this vacancy lies the basis of the existence of God.
According to Science, the early man was very much afraid of nature, of the floods, the earthquakes, the eclipses, the thunder, the night, the hurricane. And out of this fear he sought comfort in God. He said when there is no one by your side, there is God. And this fear manifested over the centuries and gave birth to numerous religion all over the world.
However, the other side says that God is one. He made the universe, the earth, the sun, the moon, the man, the plants, the animals, the wind, the water, the air, and that he is omnipresent and omnipotent and omniscient. God is one, but still God is everywhere. And it is God who is responsible for our existence and for everything else too.
What is the truth I dont know, and I shall hence not comment on it. All I am presenting below is quotations from the novel "Angels and Demons" written by "Dan Brown" which I found highly enlightening and relevant to the topic.
"To the Illuminati and to those of science, let me say this.You have won the war.
The wheels have been in motion for a long time, Your victory has been inevitable. Never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. Science is the new God.
Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation . . . these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede.
But science’s victory, has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply. Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident.
Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue.
Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God’s world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning . . . and all it finds is more questions.
The ancient war between science and religion is over, You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests -all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.
Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species . . . moving down a path of destruction.
Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea.
To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.
And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? This church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God! You ask what does God look like. I say, where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God’s hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?
Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith . . . all faiths . . . are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable . . . With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see this church as I do . . . looking beyond the ritual of these walls . . . they would see a modern miracle . . . a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.
Are we obsolete? Are these men dinosaurs? Am I? Does the world really need a voice for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the unborn child? Do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?
Tonight we are perched on a precipice, None of us can afford to be apathetic. Whether you see this evil as Satan, corruption, or immorality . . . the dark force is alive and growing every day. Do not ignore it. The force, though mighty, is not invincible. Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.
Pray with me."
I became a fan of Dan Brown after reading this. What he intends to say that Science is truth, but this truth is incomplete in itself. Science tells us what all can be done, but it does not tell us if it should be done or not. Science exists, but only in harmony with God. Otherwise there would only be chaos and nothing else. If Science is the vehicle, then God is the driver. Together both of them have to drive on the path of peace and prosperity. None can exist without the other.
What do you think?Labels: book, faith and temperance, intellectual |
| posted by Rohit Agarwal
|
|
|
|
|
|
