aryasatyadev
New member
Iss tariyan te bhai yaa happiness fraction me e milegi....... desire te kadi bhi possesion te kam naa hoti
give your hundred percent in a relationship
- Thread starter anildabas1701
- Start date
- Status
Iss tariyan te bhai yaa happiness fraction me e milegi....... desire te kadi bhi possesion te kam naa hoti
Eggjam time!!!!!!!
Chalo bahut theory ho gayi. Sabne bahut sundar sundar likha hai. Ab imtihaan ho jaaye? Yeh lo parcha:
All questions are compulsory.
Max. Marks: 100
1. Derive the following equation from first principles: Happiness = Reality - Expectations (10 Marks)
2. Critically compare the first law of relationship (Happiness = Reality - Expectations) against the second law (Happiness = P + 5E + 3H). Give 2 examples to elucidate and compare both laws. (20 Marks)
3. Case Study: Ludka has X marbles. Ludki has Y sweets. X and Y are unknown. Both make a deal to swap. Ludki gives Y sweets to Ludka. Ludka gives only X-1 marbles to Ludki.
Critically analyse the case against the third law of relationships, H=O/D (30 Marks)
4. Invent/discover the 4th law of relationship. Original invention would get more marks than a discovery from the the internet. Elaborate with examples. (40 Marks)
The exam is open book. Provide references in case of copy paste material, otherwise -ve marks shall be awarded.
Chalo bahut theory ho gayi. Sabne bahut sundar sundar likha hai. Ab imtihaan ho jaaye? Yeh lo parcha:
All questions are compulsory.
Max. Marks: 100
1. Derive the following equation from first principles: Happiness = Reality - Expectations (10 Marks)
2. Critically compare the first law of relationship (Happiness = Reality - Expectations) against the second law (Happiness = P + 5E + 3H). Give 2 examples to elucidate and compare both laws. (20 Marks)
3. Case Study: Ludka has X marbles. Ludki has Y sweets. X and Y are unknown. Both make a deal to swap. Ludki gives Y sweets to Ludka. Ludka gives only X-1 marbles to Ludki.
Critically analyse the case against the third law of relationships, H=O/D (30 Marks)
4. Invent/discover the 4th law of relationship. Original invention would get more marks than a discovery from the the internet. Elaborate with examples. (40 Marks)
The exam is open book. Provide references in case of copy paste material, otherwise -ve marks shall be awarded.
sagarmalik
New member
re bhai .. kyu baalka ne daraawe , ab iska bhi imtihaan dena padega ke ??:tamatar
maai ri..
bhaaj lo yadhe te saare .. master ji aaliye aadhe to :tamatar
A
anilsinghd
Guest
:rock
yo smiley maine rock karan taai na banaay , yo haath khade kar diye sain
mere bas ki tai hai na paper master ji kripya mujhe fakka award kar do naash ho gaya , pehle hi audit kara lena tha yo course toh ! :thappad
:rock
yo smiley maine rock karan taai na banaay , yo haath khade kar diye sain
naash ho gaya , pehle hi audit kara lena tha yo course toh ! :thappad
bas fir nyun he hawabaaz ban rahe the saare...
pehle guttham guttha hon lag rahe the...parcha aate hi saare goli ho liye...
aryasatyadev
New member
bas fir nyun he hawabaaz ban rahe the saare...
pehle guttham guttha hon lag rahe the...parcha aate hi saare goli ho liye...
Bhai, school me rahti haana bhi parche te darrr lagya karta.... ib te ghana lage sai.....
Chalo bahut theory ho gayi. Sabne bahut sundar sundar likha hai. Ab imtihaan ho jaaye? Yeh lo parcha:
All questions are compulsory.
Max. Marks: 100
1. Derive the following equation from first principles: Happiness = Reality - Expectations (10 Marks)
2. Critically compare the first law of relationship (Happiness = Reality - Expectations) against the second law (Happiness = P + 5E + 3H). Give 2 examples to elucidate and compare both laws. (20 Marks)
3. Case Study: Ludka has X marbles. Ludki has Y sweets. X and Y are unknown. Both make a deal to swap. Ludki gives Y sweets to Ludka. Ludka gives only X-1 marbles to Ludki.
Critically analyse the case against the third law of relationships, H=O/D (30 Marks)
4. Invent/discover the 4th law of relationship. Original invention would get more marks than a discovery from the the internet. Elaborate with examples. (40 Marks)
The exam is open book. Provide references in case of copy paste material, otherwise -ve marks shall be awarded.[/QUOTE]
Kapil bhaisahab.....pisse le ke pass nahi kar dooge.......ak tution lagwana padega jib karoge....
inke aalwa teh or koi rasta dikhta nahi maine pass hon ka.......
yade hosiyaar balak dhumma ho gaye.....isse isse sawal bhuj liye aapne....:boxing
bazardparveen
New member
Really good story
aryasatyadev
New member
Praveen Good te theek sai, ib is thread pe aa e gaya hai te Kapil ke sawalan ke bhi jawab de de......
Hum te saare bhaje hande sain
Praveen Good te theek sai, ib is thread pe aa e gaya hai te Kapil ke sawalan ke bhi jawab de de......
Hum te saare bhaje hande sain
issa lage sai .....duniya bachan tai , ya jimmedari mainne aapne majboot kandha pe leni e padegi.....
aryasatyadev
New member
samarkadian
Active member
Its an illusional story.
sunillathwal
New member
Its been a long time since i had taken any exam (marks aala exam i mean):
Let me try:
Above equation is not true (as per me). Attempt to derive such equation from first priniciple is obviously futile (and a dead end);
Though the above proposed equation (henceforth called eq. 1) is somewhat true if the 2nd term (expectation) tends to zero. But that doesn't mean i am belittling the importance of expectations in any relationship. For details refer Answer for the 2nd.
First law of relationship is quite vague/crude/absurd/(or a combinatition of all). Theoretically speaking 'reality' also contain the entity 'expectations'. If one is truly real, his/her expectations are manageable by the other party. likewise he/she knows exactly what is expected of him... (no 'chand taare tod le aao mere liye').
Once it is known that what is 'expected', it is always easier to meet those / bend accordingly OR parting ways amicably.
Hence, for a realistic person, expectations are not antonym with happiness rather 'these' keep relationship's charm intact.
Relationship minus expectations seems something 'robotic' to me.
Reg 2nd law of relationship:
i like this one better.
Critical analysis of this law is not that easy, too many variables u see. Moreover P, E and H are set of multiple variables whose weightages are not defined.
On the sheer face values, 2nd law seems way better than the 1st law.
To maximize the happiness, third law dictates that Objects should be as large as possible and 'desires' should approach zero.
Though it is not defined what is meant by 'desires' (similarly object is undefined); yet going 'critically'
'No desires' represent a sick attitude.. Happiness to me (in conjecture with desires) is having realistic desires (not the fantasies), giving your 100% to achieve them. If you succeed: u have the happiness and if you don't then you have 'satisfication' that u tried your level best (indirect happiness)
4th law of any relationship: Avoid "too much and Too many";
After critically analyzing the data i had on relationship failures, i had come up with one hypothesis that most common cause of failure in these realtionships was the fact that one of them loved (so called love) "too much" or the other loved "too many". While loving too much makes the other party 'suffocate' (emotional suffocation) which eventually leads to so called break-up; Loving 'too many' caused the jealousy, doubts (... and so on) and hence the failure.
(most of the above data involves bf/gf type relationships, so it should be read only in those context. though universality of the 4th law is not established yet, i hope, with little modification, it can be extend to other cases also)
My apologies for NOT defining the 4th law in form of a simple equation.
Anyhow, i have written an algorithm for the same (its too long and too complicated to put up here), those who are interested, kindly contact me in person.
All the above thoughts are purely indigenous, any resembles whatsoever to any material available one internet or otherwise is purely coincidental and unintentional.
Let me try:
Above equation is not true (as per me). Attempt to derive such equation from first priniciple is obviously futile (and a dead end);
Though the above proposed equation (henceforth called eq. 1) is somewhat true if the 2nd term (expectation) tends to zero. But that doesn't mean i am belittling the importance of expectations in any relationship. For details refer Answer for the 2nd.
First law of relationship is quite vague/crude/absurd/(or a combinatition of all). Theoretically speaking 'reality' also contain the entity 'expectations'. If one is truly real, his/her expectations are manageable by the other party. likewise he/she knows exactly what is expected of him... (no 'chand taare tod le aao mere liye').
Once it is known that what is 'expected', it is always easier to meet those / bend accordingly OR parting ways amicably.
Hence, for a realistic person, expectations are not antonym with happiness rather 'these' keep relationship's charm intact.
Relationship minus expectations seems something 'robotic' to me.
Reg 2nd law of relationship:
i like this one better.
Critical analysis of this law is not that easy, too many variables u see. Moreover P, E and H are set of multiple variables whose weightages are not defined.
On the sheer face values, 2nd law seems way better than the 1st law.
To maximize the happiness, third law dictates that Objects should be as large as possible and 'desires' should approach zero.
Though it is not defined what is meant by 'desires' (similarly object is undefined); yet going 'critically'
'No desires' represent a sick attitude.. Happiness to me (in conjecture with desires) is having realistic desires (not the fantasies), giving your 100% to achieve them. If you succeed: u have the happiness and if you don't then you have 'satisfication' that u tried your level best (indirect happiness)
4th law of any relationship: Avoid "too much and Too many";
After critically analyzing the data i had on relationship failures, i had come up with one hypothesis that most common cause of failure in these realtionships was the fact that one of them loved (so called love) "too much" or the other loved "too many". While loving too much makes the other party 'suffocate' (emotional suffocation
) which eventually leads to so called break-up; Loving 'too many' caused the jealousy, doubts (... and so on) and hence the failure. (most of the above data involves bf/gf type relationships, so it should be read only in those context. though universality of the 4th law is not established yet, i hope, with little modification, it can be extend to other cases also)
My apologies for NOT defining the 4th law in form of a simple equation.
Anyhow, i have written an algorithm for the same (its too long and too complicated to put up here), those who are interested, kindly contact me in person.
All the above thoughts are purely indigenous, any resembles whatsoever to any material available one internet or otherwise is purely coincidental and unintentional.
Samar Ji, every story is an illusional story in the begining, it dependes or us what we wanted to extract from it........
Let me try:
Above equation is not true (as per me). Attempt to derive such equation from first priniciple is obviously futile (and a dead end);
Though the above proposed equation (henceforth called eq. 1) is somewhat true if the 2nd term (expectation) tends to zero. But that doesn't mean i am belittling the importance of expectations in any relationship. For details refer Answer for the 2nd.
First law of relationship is quite vague/crude/absurd/(or a combinatition of all). Theoretically speaking 'reality' also contain the entity 'expectations'. If one is truly real, his/her expectations are manageable by the other party. likewise he/she knows exactly what is expected of him... (no 'chand taare tod le aao mere liye').
Once it is known that what is 'expected', it is always easier to meet those / bend accordingly OR parting ways amicably.
Hence, for a realistic person, expectations are not antonym with happiness rather 'these' keep relationship's charm intact.
Relationship minus expectations seems something 'robotic' to me.
Reg 2nd law of relationship:
i like this one better.
Critical analysis of this law is not that easy, too many variables u see. Moreover P, E and H are set of multiple variables whose weightages are not defined.
On the sheer face values, 2nd law seems way better than the 1st law.
To maximize the happiness, third law dictates that Objects should be as large as possible and 'desires' should approach zero.
Though it is not defined what is meant by 'desires' (similarly object is undefined); yet going 'critically'
'No desires' represent a sick attitude.. Happiness to me (in conjecture with desires) is having realistic desires (not the fantasies), giving your 100% to achieve them. If you succeed: u have the happiness and if you don't then you have 'satisfication' that u tried your level best (indirect happiness)
4th law of any relationship: Avoid "too much and Too many";
After critically analyzing the data i had on relationship failures, i had come up with one hypothesis that most common cause of failure in these realtionships was the fact that one of them loved (so called love) "too much" or the other loved "too many". While loving too much makes the other party 'suffocate' (emotional suffocation
(most of the above data involves bf/gf type relationships, so it should be read only in those context. though universality of the 4th law is not established yet, i hope, with little modification, it can be extend to other cases also)
My apologies for NOT defining the 4th law in form of a simple equation.
Anyhow, i have written an algorithm for the same (its too long and too complicated to put up here), those who are interested, kindly contact me in person.
All the above thoughts are purely indigenous, any resembles whatsoever to any material available one internet or otherwise is purely coincidental and unintentional.
Sunil, parcha to maine is thread pe available study material dekh ke bana diya tha, par uski kunji to mere paas bhi nahin hai. In other words, it is beyond my ability to evaluate it...
But full marks for attempting and giving such a stupendous response...
A
anilsinghd
Guest
Sunil, parcha to maine is thread pe available study material dekh ke bana diya tha, par uski kunji to mere paas bhi nahin hai. In other words, it is beyond my ability to evaluate it...
But full marks for attempting and giving such a stupendous response...
na nyun na sai !
Recheck hogi Sunil baabu ki kaaapi !
A
anilsinghd
Guest
Let me try:
Above equation is not true (as per me). Attempt to derive such equation from first priniciple is obviously futile (and a dead end);
Though the above proposed equation (henceforth called eq. 1) is somewhat true if the 2nd term (expectation) tends to zero. But that doesn't mean i am belittling the importance of expectations in any relationship. For details refer Answer for the 2nd.
Somehwat key hovai sai ? Fuzzy Laagic !!
First law of relationship is quite vague/crude/absurd/(or a combinatition of all). Theoretically speaking 'reality' also contain the entity 'expectations'. If one is truly real, his/her expectations are manageable by the other party. likewise he/she knows exactly what is expected of him... (no 'chand taare tod le aao mere liye').
Once it is known that what is 'expected', it is always easier to meet those / bend accordingly OR parting ways amicably.
Hence, for a realistic person, expectations are not antonym with happiness rather 'these' keep relationship's charm intact.
Relationship minus expectations seems something 'robotic' to me.
Reg 2nd law of relationship:
i like this one better.
Critical analysis of this law is not that easy, too many variables u see.
too manya kahaan hain ? 3 hi to hain !!
Moreover P, E and H are set of multiple variables whose weightages are not defined.
weights hain to sahi , 1, 5 , 3
On the sheer face values, 2nd law seems way better than the 1st law.
8 batte 10 .... tikka maar ke very good ! shabbash
sunillathwal
New member
Arre kassai, dhyaan tai padhya tha jabye to weightages ki kami mehsus hui thi:
Read Arya ji ki post 'deeply'. P, E er H ki to weightages to thi par in RED fonts aale ki
P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience.
E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships.
H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.
Konya define naa, Anile??? Hence Proved.
Teen: er dekh kitne hoge, teen k rahe?? :tamatar
waise somwaat pakka scientfic word to nahi hai.. par hunch tai yaa guess tai faltu scientific.
Fuzzy laagic: Relativity... frame of reference change karke dekh.. kati crystal clear ho jyaa ga.
Read Arya ji ki post 'deeply'. P, E er H ki to weightages to thi par in RED fonts aale ki
P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience.
E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships.
H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.
Konya define naa, Anile??? Hence Proved.
Teen: er dekh kitne hoge, teen k rahe?? :tamatar
waise somwaat pakka scientfic word to nahi hai.. par hunch tai yaa guess tai faltu scientific.
Fuzzy laagic: Relativity... frame of reference change karke dekh.. kati crystal clear ho jyaa ga.
A
anilsinghd
Guest
Arre kassai, dhyaan tai padhya tha jabye to weightages ki kami mehsus hui thi:
Read Arya ji ki post 'deeply'. P, E er H ki to weightages to thi par in RED fonts aale ki
P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience.
E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships.
H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.
Konya define naa, Anile??? Hence Proved.
Teen: er dekh kitne hoge, teen k rahe?? :tamatar
waise somwaat pakka scientfic word to nahi hai.. par hunch tai yaa guess tai faltu scientific.
Fuzzy laagic: Relativity... frame of reference change karke dekh.. kati crystal clear ho jyaa ga.
naash jaa rai !!!
variables ke variables mein bad gaye aap toh
bole to functions ke functions mein , bole to functor ?
bas rehan do , dimaag paat jaaga mera !!!
2.5 saal ho liye koi si pothi padhe - Status