Ek baar waqt se, lamha gira kahin.. wahaan daastaan mili, lamha kahin nahi..
Monday, August 10, 2009
Kya karein kya na karein ye kaisi mushqil haaye..
I don't want to be responsible. I want to be reliable, though. But it seems like 'being responsible' is a pre-requisite for 'being reliable' :( ... Greedy me :D
1. Your smile/eyes/dressing sense/ Cuteness Index... 2. The way you talk. 3. Someone's recommendation (depends greatly on 1 and 2, and to some extent on 4). 4. How responsible you have been in your past (For instance, if you worked responsibly on 8 out of 10 projects, then we can attach a certainty factor of 0.8, and come to the conclusion that you can be assumed to work in a 'responsible' manner on a new project with a certainty of 0.8).
This doesn't apply to reliability, as the CF for reliability has to be either 1 or 0, which means, we need to set a threshold too.
q and y are different. Reliability is about public perception, I agree, but then, it is also about one's self-belief/facts. I have seen people who ARE reliable, but aren't considered reliable (don't appear reliable enough). So, if (not y) and (q) can be true at the same time, they have to be different. Thats my take on it.
Looking at your PS, I'd edit it to
(p OR x) AND (other-criteria-that-make-you-reliable-excluding-responsibility) <--> q
Note that the above statement would make all of the following true:
q -> (p or x) AND (other-criteria) q -> (p or x) q -> other-criteria
Rememeber, x and y are about other's views, not necessarily the facts.
It makes me wonder how one should define 'reliable'. The dictionary defines it to be someone who is dependable and trustworthy. A lot more goes into building trust, responsibility may not be the most important factor.
"I have seen people who ARE reliable, but aren't considered reliable (don't appear reliable enough)."
well, at least you consider them reliable, which means it will be hard to say that they are not considered reliable. So, either we will have to say that q and y are same, or we will have to define them properly with the right quantifiers and at the end of this exercise, what you will get is that how you want to draw the line between q and y is just your choice and it will be very hard to reach a consensus on that.
"(p OR x) AND (other-criteria-that-make-you-reliable-excluding-responsibility) <--> q"
This was just elaborating my comment, right :)... have to agree to this :D
As for trust, that is a long topic of discussion and I won't get into that right now but if you want to read some random blurting about 'trust', have a look at this
http://divesh.blogspot.com/2008/05/trust.html
Needless to say, comments on that make much more sense than the post itself.
Gosh yeh sab kya comments (read theorems)chaap rahe ho?! What made you write this post is what interests me...kuchch farmaayie :-). The two Rs do go hand in hand.
well.. kuchh baaton ko math ke kapde pehna kar kaha gaya tha... to uttar bhi usi bhasha mein diya gaya..
baaki reason to kind of obvious hi hai.. kuchh hua jis mein my being irresponsible caused my being unreliable.. and there is an eternal desire to be irresponsible and also to be reliable
I always knew FOPL was hard...
ReplyDeletep: responsible
q: reliable
x: criteria that can make you 'appear' responsible
y: criteria that can make you 'appear' reliable
Tum kehna kya chahte ho...
p --> q
or
p <--> q
or
p or x or y --> q
or
not q --> not p (Modus Tollens??)
or
(not p) or (not y) --> (not q)
Which makes me think...
doesn't
(not p) or y or x --> q ??
Sala bahut confusion hai bhai...
Oh, I forgot to give examples pf x and y.
ReplyDelete1. Your smile/eyes/dressing sense/ Cuteness Index...
2. The way you talk.
3. Someone's recommendation (depends greatly on 1 and 2, and to some extent on 4).
4. How responsible you have been in your past (For instance, if you worked responsibly on 8 out of 10 projects, then we can attach a certainty factor of 0.8, and come to the conclusion that you can be assumed to work in a 'responsible' manner on a new project with a certainty of 0.8).
This doesn't apply to reliability, as the CF for reliability has to be either 1 or 0, which means, we need to set a threshold too.
Sorry, I left a bug:
ReplyDeleteWhich makes me think...doesn't
(not p) AND (y or x) --> q ??
hona chahiye tha.
(too many comments, maaf karna, office me karne ko aur kuch nahi hai :D :P )
Interesting theory hai... but I have a question (and maybe more questions will follow later) before I attempt to answer yours.
ReplyDeleteWhile p and x, I understand, are different, I don't understand what the difference is between q and y. Aren't both about public perception?
And what I intended to say was something like
not p --> not q,
that is if you are not responsible, then you cannot be reliable. Or in other words
q --> p.
However reading your comment, I have to rethink that it should probably be
q --> p or x.
PS: Just being responsible does not make you reliable for sure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteq and y are different. Reliability is about public perception, I agree, but then, it is also about one's self-belief/facts. I have seen people who ARE reliable, but aren't considered reliable (don't appear reliable enough). So, if (not y) and (q) can be true at the same time, they have to be different. Thats my take on it.
ReplyDeleteLooking at your PS, I'd edit it to
(p OR x) AND (other-criteria-that-make-you-reliable-excluding-responsibility) <--> q
Note that the above statement would make all of the following true:
q -> (p or x) AND (other-criteria)
q -> (p or x)
q -> other-criteria
Rememeber, x and y are about other's views, not necessarily the facts.
It makes me wonder how one should define 'reliable'. The dictionary defines it to be someone who is dependable and trustworthy. A lot more goes into building trust, responsibility may not be the most important factor.
"I have seen people who ARE reliable, but aren't considered reliable (don't appear reliable enough)."
ReplyDeletewell, at least you consider them reliable, which means it will be hard to say that they are not considered reliable. So, either we will have to say that q and y are same, or we will have to define them properly with the right quantifiers and at the end of this exercise, what you will get is that how you want to draw the line between q and y is just your choice and it will be very hard to reach a consensus on that.
"(p OR x) AND (other-criteria-that-make-you-reliable-excluding-responsibility) <--> q"
This was just elaborating my comment, right :)... have to agree to this :D
As for trust, that is a long topic of discussion and I won't get into that right now but if you want to read some random blurting about 'trust', have a look at this
http://divesh.blogspot.com/2008/05/trust.html
Needless to say, comments on that make much more sense than the post itself.
Gosh yeh sab kya comments (read theorems)chaap rahe ho?!
ReplyDeleteWhat made you write this post is what interests me...kuchch farmaayie :-).
The two Rs do go hand in hand.
well.. kuchh baaton ko math ke kapde pehna kar kaha gaya tha... to uttar bhi usi bhasha mein diya gaya..
ReplyDeletebaaki reason to kind of obvious hi hai.. kuchh hua jis mein my being irresponsible caused my being unreliable.. and there is an eternal desire to be irresponsible and also to be reliable
Ye main kahaan aa gaya! Bhaago..
ReplyDelete:P
:D
ReplyDelete