Saturday 23 April 2016

Jugaad: The Innovative Fix

Jugaad: The Innovative Fix

Jugaad is generally used as word to represent an innovative fix or a simple work-around.
This word is often used to signify creativity to make existing things work or to create new things with meager resources.
It is an Art of Converting an Adversity into Opportunity.

Jugaad is increasingly accepted as a management technique and is recognized all over the world as an acceptable form of frugal engineering at peak in India.
Companies in India are adopting Jugaad as a practise to reduce research and development costs.
Jugaad also applies to any kind of creative and out of the box thinking or life hacking, which maximizes resources for a company and its stakeholders.

Pictures convey messages louder than words.
Hence, a few images shared here as part of the extent of the jugaad phenomena:

Problem: 1 cooler and 2 rooms.

Problem: Every gully cricketer has found problem in finding stumps.

 Problem: Broken shower.

Problem: Car safety.

Problem: Cooking gas/stove problem.

Problem: Bike horn.

Problem: We, as kids, had a standing journey on a scooter at all times.

Problem: Hair straitening.

The images above might be a good humour but truly an out of the box thinking!
All the above can be tried with all precautions in place at your own risk.


Sunday 17 April 2016

Science of Deduction

Science of Deduction

Aristotle started documenting deductive reasoning in the 4th century BC.

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions.
If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
An example of a deductive argument:
1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man. 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal".
The second premise states that "Socrates" is classified as a "man" – a member of the set "men".
The conclusion then states that "Socrates" must be "mortal" because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a "man".

I. Law of detachment:

The law of detachment is the first form of deductive reasoning.
A single conditional statement is made, and a hypothesis (P) is stated.
The conclusion (Q) is then deduced from the statement and the hypothesis.
The most basic form is listed below:
1. P → Q (conditional statement)
2. P (hypothesis stated)
3. Q (conclusion deduced)
In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q from P by using the law of detachment.
However, if the conclusion (Q) is given instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is no definitive conclusion.
The following is an example of an argument using the law of detachment in the form of an if-then statement:
1. If an angle satisfies 90° < A < 180°, then A is an obtuse angle.
2. A = 120°.
3. A is an obtuse angle.
Since the measurement of angle A is greater than 90° and less than 180°, we can deduce that A is an obtuse angle.
If however, we are given the conclusion that A is an obtuse angle we cannot deduce the premise that A = 120°.

II. Law of syllogism:

The law of syllogism takes two conditional statements and forms a conclusion by combining the hypothesis of one statement with the conclusion of another.
Here is the general form:
1. P → Q
2. Q → R
3. Therefore, P → R.
The following is an example:
1. If Larry is sick, then he will be absent.
2. If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork.
3. Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork.
We deduced the final statement by combining the hypothesis of the first statement with the conclusion of the second statement.
We also allow that this could be a false statement.
This is an example of the transitive property in mathematics.
The transitive property is sometimes phrased in this form:
1. A = B.
2. B = C.
3. Therefore, A = C.

III. Law of contrapositive:

The law of contrapositive states that, in a conditional, if the conclusion is false, then the hypothesis must be false also.
The general form is the following:
1. P → Q.
2. ~Q.
3. Therefore, we can conclude ~P.
The following are examples:
1. If it is raining, then there are clouds in the sky.
2. There are no clouds in the sky.
3. Thus, it is not raining.

IV. Validity and Soundness: 

Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms of their validity and soundness.
An argument is “valid” if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false.
In other words, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
An argument can be “valid” even if one or more of its premises are false.
An argument is “sound” if it is valid and the premises are true.
It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically valid but is not sound.
Fallacious arguments often take that form.
The following is an example of an argument that is “valid”, but not “sound”:
1. Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback.
2. John eats carrots.
3. 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”.
False generalizations – such as “Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback” – are often used to make unsound arguments.
The fact that there are some people who eat carrots but are not quarterbacks proves the flaw of the argument.

Deductive reasoning is generally considered to be a skill that develops without any formal teaching or training.


Sherlock Holmes Series

Friday 8 April 2016

Suicidal Sarcasm


The origin and evolution of languages has been a topic of discussion among scholars for several centuries. There is no consensus on the ultimate origin of the human language.
I believe Sarcasm is now a global tongue, which is common to every language.
Sarcasm is also argued to be more sophisticated than lying because lying is expressed as early as the age of 3 years, but sarcastic expressions take place much later during development.

For those who do not practice it:
Sarcasm is a tongue of which the user speaks of something the complete opposite of what the user means. It often has the best comedic value.
Irony, when used for purposes of humor, is gentle.
But, sarcasm is always merciless and satirical.

- Please keep talking. I always yawn when I'm interested.
- Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today.
- I like you. People say I've got no taste, but I like you.

I'm a user as well as victim of it.
I believe it to be most difficult tongue, which requires second-order interpretation of the user's intentions.
Different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm.
This understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism (although not always).

How sarcasm can be damaging you?
Although an occasional sarcastic remark may seem harmless, but sarcasm is hurtful to others.
These sharp, cutting remarks are given with the intent to wound or embarrass.
Rightly said, Humor comes at the expense of someone else.
The receiver of the communication is always the determinant as to whether it crosses the line. It is out of the control of the user.
At the very least, it has got tremendous potential to be misunderstood since there is always a 'hidden message' involved.

Few ideas to help break free from the bad habit of sarcasm:
- Think before you speak.
- Keep a mental or written list of the reactions and consequences you notice.
- The awarness alone will be a powerful motivator to change your own behaviour.

I don’t want to sugarcoat it; sarcastic speech is a very difficult habit to break once it has become a part of your communication style.
And it’s especially tough if the people around you thrive on the temptation of ‘one-upping’ each other when it comes to sarcastic comments.
The truth is sarcasm breeds sarcasm.