Is the logic related praying to Jesus incorrect in the film Jab Tak Hai Jaan, if not what do you do think is wrong in the movie?
The part Meera (Katrina Kaif) prays to her God is fine, the part she makes promises to her God is also fine, but her conviction in sticking to the her promise is worrisome. And on top of that her love is at stake which makes her romance problematic. It looks like she is rolling the dice when she is praying. (Half way through the movie, she makes me cringe and prays that she stops praying) And why the hell does Samar (Shah Rukh Khan) have to take risky jobs like diffusing bombs? He is a Muslim and he shouldn't believe in her promises with her God right? That will be shirk right? If is a good guy he would be treasuring his life for it is a gift from his girlfriend's prayers right? I think Samar shouldn't have waited for 10 years, should have just move on, cause Meera is not worth it, she prays probably about every single thing and become petty afterwards or else she will be paranoid. I seriously think she have a serious mental condition that Yash Chopra forget to address. I think Akira (Anushka) should have end up with Samar seriously!
What is the most logical yet incorrect thing you've ever seen someone believe or believed yourself?
I had a friend who believed that if you are a girlfriend /wife and if your better half gets hard in public it is your responsibility to give your partner a blowjob and/or a hand job to help him get done with it and surprisingly enough he found a wife who agreed with it and helps him out whenever he gets hard in public
What is the difference between a logical error and a semantic error?
Logical error: A logical error occurs due to the poor understanding of the problem. For instance if you want to find the modulo of a certain number (eg: a%4) instead you wrote the program for division(eg: a/4) then this type of error is considered to be the logical error.Semantic error: A semantic occurs due to the wrong use of the variables. The syntax of the programming language would be correct but the problem may be caused due to the use of wrong variables, wrong operations or in a wrong order. The compiler cant catch this error. For example if you are using an uninitialized variable as the code given below: int j; j++; In the code snipped given above the variable j is uninitialized but it is post-incremented.
Construction of set theory and mathematical logic?
It is true that set theory is fundamentally an axiomatic logical system. And it is also true that logic needs sets (not sure why someone said that isn't true, but there's absolutely no logic without sets). But that doesn't mean that the construction is incorrect. Set Theory and Logic can be carefully constructed. Usually, you begin doing Logic with naive set theory, which is fine as long as you're careful to avoid the dangeous paradoxes, ie. Russell's paradox. Then you can get enough logic to define real set theory. This real crux is that logic and set theory are fundamentally the same study. Here, we are fooled by our language to think that they're different because they're different words.
Examples of making an incorrect inference?
I have an essay due basically about making an incorrect inference and facing serious consequences after. Can someone please give me an example or actual events? I can't think of anything that I went through with this. thank you.
What is the difference between logical and bitwise operands in c?
Hello friend , I think it can be your answer . Logical Operators : ! (Contradictory) !X && (and) Z>Y&& Z>X || (or) X>Y||X>Z ( X , Z ,Y ------>>> Operand ) Result of operator ! When it is true that Operand's value is incorrect. Result of operator && is true when both operand's value is correct. Thus, the operator || is incorrect when the result of both operand is incorrect. In other cases, the value is correct. Bit operators : & (and) | (or) ^ (Exclusive or ) ~ (Contradictory) << (shift to the raght) >> (shift to the left) Result of operator & is true when both operand value is correct. Thus, the operator | is incorrect when both operand is incorrect. ^ Operator result is true when one operand to the value of integrity and other values to be incorrect. In other cases, the value is correct. If X, Y two bits of data are equals 1 and X 0 = x ~ is. If X and Y equal to 1 is equal to 0 .1 = y | x is equal to 0 and X & Y is. ^ It is true that when one of the data right (1) and other wrong (0) is. Any shift to the right into the equivalent of two every shift left is equivalent to multiplication in the second. I hope that understand your purpose correctly .
Is logic always right?
Nope. Not by a long shot. The reason is because if we take the implication of ‘right’ to be ‘true’ then it needs to be said logic does not actually deal with epistemological essences directly.This is the reason why Charles Dodgson (better known as Lewis Carroll) entitled one of his books The Game of Logic. Logic is a method of demonstrating necessities. It delineates the pattern of propagation that is produced by premises. If the premises are false then the conclusion will also be - that means that false conclusions can be entirely logical. Does that make logic ‘right about being wrong’? That would be ironic.In summary, logic is consistent. That is not the same as correct. The implications of this fact cannot be overstated. At the very least, one can say that when the argument ‘I am right because I am being logical’ is made then the response ‘not necessarily’ is actually necessarily true itself.If logic was always right there would be only one outcome resulting from its application
Logically, what's wrong in murdering a man?
Logically, nothing is “wrong” with anything, because logic as a branch of philosophy doesn’t concern itself with what’s right or wrong, only what’s true or false.Ethics would be the branch of philosophy to go to if you want to explore whether it’s wrong to kill a man. There are a bunch of philosophical stances on whether (and if so, when) it’s ever okay to kill a person. I’m not going to describe them all here, but my favorite resourse for introductory philosophy is CrashCourse and this playlist of videos about ethics should familiarize you with the most popular ethical perspectives.I personally subscribe to the consequentialist utilitarian viewpoint, explored here:in that I believe causing suffering should be limited as much as possible and thus, as killing a man would likely cause suffering to him, and almost certainly to his family, friends and society at large (because he’d no longer be a tax payer etc.), killing him should be avoided if possible.However, if not killing him is going to lead to more suffering than doing so, for example if I know he’s going to kill five people if I let him live, I’ll kill him.
What was so wrong with logical positivism that it declared itself a failure? Couldn't it be salvaged?
The problem with logical positivism is that it was a substantive research programme with particular beliefs which formed it’s bedrock, which ultimately unraveled and was seen as unsustainable.One doctrine they held was called Verificationism which held that a statement is meaningful if and only if it is either in principle verifiable empirically, or is true in virtue of its terms.The problem with this doctrine is that it is self-defeating. The doctrine ITSELF is neither verifiable empirically, one could never gain empirical evidence for it, nor is it true due to the meanings of what it is saying. So by it’s own lights, it would be meaningless.Some other issues relate to confirmation. Say a logical positivist thinks that, and I’m pretty sure all logical positivists did, that you gain observations which support or test hypotheses. The problem is that this is not that simple. We never test hypotheses in isolation.Say we have hypothesis H. We want to test that hypothesis. But I can’t test that hypothesis unless I also have a large background of other assumptions, such as that my instruments work well in a particular way, that gravity holds constant, etc. Now if I get an observation which is inconsistent with the predictions of my hypothesis, I don’t have to say my hypothesis is false. I can say that probably one of my auxiliary assumptions is wrong, but I don’t know which one until much later. So I get a puzzle, and this happens throughout history, especially when there are dominant paradigm shifts. For more about this, see the Duhem-Quine Thesis, and Thomas Kuhn’s Scientific Revolutions.Basically what happened was that logical positivists over time just realized that there were too many problems with their doctrines, and over time, after blow after blow occurred, it just seemed irretrievable.However, that doesn’t mean that remnants of what might be called an overall ‘logical positivist’ ethos doesn’t remain in philosophy. These are philosophers who are skeptical of any answers to philosophical questions which refer to ‘spooky metaphysics’, such as God, souls, reverse causation, etc. These are also philosophers who are highly involved in, and informed by, our sciences. These are generally philosophers who want to get more down to Earth with the sciences and are very concerned with finding out the truth about the world.