On don't cares and braHmajnAna (Was: Re: brahmavid=Krishna)

[Kiran B R]

> As  you think great about your programming logic, so
> also remember that in Electronics there is a 'Don't
> care condition' which means 'Yes or No' and 'Yes and
> no'.
>

In saying "As you think...", there is an assumption
you are making that "I think..." Come out of this rut
of assumptions, my friend! Free yourself of this! I
don't "think great about" "my" programming logic. I
just used that language since repeated appeals to ask
the question of ABILITY were buried in your brains
because you have been assuming that ABILITY all along.

Your mention of "Yes or No" and "Yes and No" supports
my argument and not yours. (By the way, in tennis this
is called an unforced error:-)

How? Listen.

First of all, if I ask someone "Are you capable?", and
the answer is "Yes or No", he simply does not
understand English (assuming we're speaking in
English). Needless to mention that he already has an
incapabiity, which is sufficient to relieve him of his
braHmajnAni title.

If the answer is "Yes and No", that appears to make
more sense, since it atleast confirms that he
understands the language of communication. It APPEARS
to makes more sense, but in reality it doesn't make
ANY sense. Why not? Because he must then be able to
demonstrate two condtradictory things: 1) That he CAN
do what I asked him to do, and 2) That he CANNOT do
what I asked him to do. If he demonstrates the first,
he cannot demonstrate the second. That is, if he can
demonstrate that he CAN do, then there is no question
of demonstrating that he CANNOT do. In which case he
has lied in his "Yes and No" answer. That's enough to
relieve him, again, of his braHmajnAni title. Liars
are not braHmajnAnis. Liars are liars. Call them
liars. If on the other hand, after answering "Yes and
No" he demonstrates that he CANNOT do, then there is
no question of demonstrating that he CAN do without
further learning. Even in this case, it is clear that
he has lied in the "Yes and No" answer, and we proceed
as before to call him a liar instead of as a
braHmajnAni. And run.

One small thing. In Electronics, a don't-care (X),
whether taken to stand for "Yes and No" or a "Yes or
No", indicates the IRRELEVANCE of the value (X), and
hence the name don't-care. A logic gate stuck at 0.5
volts when it's "Dharma" is to be either at 0 volts or
at 1 volt is an irrelevant logic gate, and we call 0.5
volts as X. We proceed to ignore that value and also
that logic gate which produced that value. It's easy
to translate this Electronics-argument to our
braHmajnAni-argument. There is one more situation in
which we call the value of a logic gate as X. That is
when it just doesn't matter if the vallue is 0 or 1.
Why doesn't it matter? Because nobody is using that
value, and hence there is no need to consider that
value in any further calculation. We "don't care"
about that value.

But I care about that value. That's why I ask. That's
why it better be 1 or 0 (yes or no).

> Now, you are trying to explain using symbolic logic.
> In my previous e-mail I asked you to do the same
> thing, so you realise that your anology does not
> lead
> to your conclusions.

I didn't see you asking me to do anything! What email
are you talking about?

Dhanyavaad
Kiran

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com