Apple’s iPhone: Buzz gone Bust?
By philobean | July 1, 2007
Some juicy news and reviews on Apple’s iPhone (words from the naysayers and the praisemongers):
CNNMoney: One buyer’s tale of woe
C|Net: “As an iPod, it shines” but…
PCMag: “The best portable media player ever” but…
WSJ’s Walt Mossberg: the iPhone “a Breakthrough Hand-held Computer”
New York Times: iPhone matches *most of its* hype
More from the happy people of the World Wide Web c/o Macrumors.com
The Apple iPhone: a buzz or a bust? You decide.
Topics: Technology, Business | No Comments »
Good News in the News!
By philobean | June 30, 2007
After hearing about how Philippine media can be so pessimistic and cyncial, we find the following article in the news! Well, let’s all sit back and relish some good news for a change.
Note, however, the little snippet of ‘bad news’ (talk about black sheep) in the latter half of the piece. Hint: the line describes the government’s budget deficit for the first five months of 2007 due to the failure of tax collections to meet targets.
[In silent consideration…]
This calls to mind all that hullaballoo surrounding the former BIR chief and Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, which further reminds me of the recent accusation by Congressman Herminio Teves’ (the finance secretary’s father) against the congressional commission on appointments . Allegedly, the commission solicits bribes from would-be cabinet appointees, which included, at some point in the past, his son Margarito Teves…
[To self] Stop! For chissake! Why can’t we just think happy thoughts for a day without having these nasty images of graft and corruption sneak up on us!
Think positive! Happy thoughts, happy thoughts…
Topics: A little political, Business | 2 Comments »
Taipan Henry Sy believes, can’t we too?
By philobean | June 29, 2007
Many believe that we are a generation of disillusioned youth, a flock of nonbelievers, a mass of Filipinos-by-name who believe immigration is only a matter of when, not why; why not, not caring where so long as it is away from here.
Taipan Henry Sy relates to us in an interview with the Philippine Star his dedication and belief in a prosperous Philippines. Henry Sy, after all, was himself, an emigrant (to the Philippines and not from the Philippines). Why would an emigrant have so much faith in a country whose natives-born do not, even in the slightest, share similar sentiment?
Surely, while many consider the words of our politicians worth little, the words of a man who’s prospered by none but his own hand must hold more weight.
Topics: Business, Personal | 3 Comments »
All You Need to Know Logic (Part 3 - Rules of Inference)
By philobean | June 28, 2007
From where we left off, we can now symbolize arguments, assess the truth value of statements, and convert statements into their more easily manageable logical equivalents via the rules of replacement. Here, we find ourselves at the end of the process, where from various statements (either true or false), we look to assess the validity and soundness of arguments (which is a series of statements that aim to establish a logical conclusion from established premises).
And this is done quite simply. The rules of inference is a listing of the most fundamental modes of logical deduction, that is, these are simple arguments that lead to valid conclusions. All forms of valid argumentation (even those of a thousand pages long) can be reduced to discrete steps founded upon one or more of these rules of inference. Thus, any argument that cannot be proven via the rules of inference (with the help of the rules of replacement as a method of rephrasing or resymbolizing statements into more familiar forms) are invalid.
The rules of inference can be found here.
Topics: Academic | No Comments »
All You Need to Know Logic (Part 2 - Rules of Replacement)
By philobean | June 27, 2007
Some statements may be written differently but logically mean the same thing. For example, the statement ‘if I pass the board exam, then I will inherit a thousand pesos’ is logically equivalent to ‘I will inherit a thousand pesos if I pass the board exam’. Now, this is obvious. Some logical equivalences are more subtle. Take ‘I will die or I will pass the board exam’. Would you have guessed this is logically equivalent to ‘I will die unless I will pass the board exam’? Notice how changes in phrasing and sentence construction may not affect the logical relations being put forward in a statement.
Now, imagine being asked to analyze a complex argument. Wouldn’t it be easier to analyze some arguments when you convert them into a more familiar form? The examples above show how two different methods of grammatical construction may result in a single logical statement. Other logical statements (while different) may be equivalent to each other. Thus, it is possible to use them interchangeably.
For example, ‘if it rains, then the ground is wet’ (symbolized: ‘r : w’) is logically equivalent to ‘it doesn’t rain or the ground is wet’ (symbolized: ~r v w).
While there are many possible logical equivalencies (thus, many possibilities for replacement), all these can be reduced to a finite number of fundamental rules. These are called the rules of replacement.
These rules are summaried here.
Topics: Academic | No Comments »
Part 1: Relations in Logic (Samples)
By philobean | June 26, 2007
Understanding truth tables is key to the next steps in logical deduction. This is so simply because all that follows are based on the truth relations shown in the truth tables, that is, what follows are simply derivative rules that were designed to ease analysis of validity and , consequently, soundness.
The truth or falsity of all complex statements can be deduced using truth tables. For example, take the following complex statement:
Manila is the capital of the Philippines and Bangkok that of Thailand, if and only if the world is flat or the sun is the center of the solar system.
There are four simple statements herein–(1) Manila is the capital of the Philippines, (2) Bangkok is the capital of Thailand, (3) the world is flat, and (4) the sun is the center of the solar system. These are true, true, false and true, respectively. Thus, we can represent all true statements with ‘T’ and all false statements with ‘F’ and present the statement in this wise:
T AND T, IF AND ONLY IF F OR T.
Using ‘^’ to represent the AND relation, ‘v’ to represent the OR relation, ‘:’ to represent the CONDITONAL relation, and ‘::’ to represent the EQUIVALENCE relation, we have the following: (T ^ T) :: (F v T). We use brackets, braces and parenthesis to represent proximity of relationship. We can then simplify the analysis of the above as follows:
(T ^ T) :: (F v T)
=> T :: (F v T)
=> T :: T
=> T
We can also represent statements with small roman letters. Taking the same example above, we’d have the following representation: (a ^ b) :: (c v d).
It is when we reduce complex statements in common language to symbols that we are able to easily determine a statement’s truth value and an argument’s validity and soundness. Using truth tables may become cumbersome when we deal with lengthy argumentation. Thus, a standard set of the rules of replacement and the rules of inference were developed as methods to facilitate our analyses.
Topics: Academic | 2 Comments »
All You Need to Know Logic (Part 1 - Relations in Logic)
By philobean | June 25, 2007
Everyone needs logic because everyone uses it, consciously or as a matter of habit. Clearly, this argument is a little circular, arguing in effect that we need logic because we need logic. Yet this is an immutable and apparent truth. We need logic because our language is grounded on both rules of syntax (grammar) and rules of sense (logic). We need logic because our world is seen as intrinsically logical (we poke fun at every ironic, paradoxical and oxymoronical thing that happens around us). We need logic because we rely on it when we make decisions, when we judge circumstances and other persons, and when we assess the moral consequences of thoughts and actions.
But logic is simple enough. This is the first of a three part post on the basics of formal logic. This post covers logical relations, the second rules of replacement, and the last rules of inference. With these, you should be able to do just one important thing–determine the validity or invalidity of an argument. That’s it.
So, let’s begin.
—————-
Axiom 1: Statements are either true or false depending on whether or not it conforms to a state of affairs in reality. [Note: While there are some statements that are neither true nor false, we ignore these types of statements in this discussion. To read more about the other type of statements, follow the following link to J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory.]
Axiom 2: Arguments (which are a series of logically related statements) are either valid or invalid. They cannot be either true or false. Arguments are valid if its conclusion(s) follow logically from its premises. Premises are the assumptions from which conclusions are drawn out logically. For example, in the argument,
If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It rains.
Therefore, the ground is wet.
The first two statements are premises while the last is the conclusion.
Axiom 3: Valid arguments whose premises are true are sound arguments.
Based on the preceding three axioms, you can now use the words true, valid and sound correctly. Please feel free to instruct others who seem to be using these words interchangeably of the precise use of each.
So, then, on to the four types of logical relations. They are simple, commonsensical and are the following: And, Or, Condition, and Equivalence.
Samples:
- (And) It rained yesterday AND it will rain today.
- (Or) It rained yesterday OR it will rain today.
- (Conditional) If it rained yesterday, then it will rain today.
- (Equivalence) It rained yesterday if and only if it will rain today.
These logical relations connect statements (which, remember, are either true or false). Thus, we can determine whether the compound statement (the whole combined statement) is either true or false depending on whether each statement comprising it is either true or false and the logical relation that connects these statements together. Here are the very simple rules.
AND Logical Relation
| Statement 1 | Statement 2 | Combined Statement |
| T | T | T |
| T | F | F |
| F | T | F |
| F | F | F |
OR Logical Relation
| Statement 1 | Statement 2 | Combined Statement |
| T | T | T |
| T | F | T |
| F | T | T |
| F | F | F |
Conditional Logical Relation
| Statement 1 | Statement 2 | Combined Statement |
| T | T | T |
| T | F | F |
| F | T | T |
| F | F | T |
Equivalence Logical Relation
| Statement 1 | Statement 2 | Combined Statement |
| T | T | T |
| T | F | F |
| F | T | F |
| F | F | T |
Consider these relations for a while and why the combined relations have the assigned truth values. It may seem odd at first but all the results should be quite commonsensical (after all, we are all ‘logical’ beings, pun intended).
Topics: Academic | No Comments »
M&A Spree, too Big? Not Quite
By philobean | June 24, 2007
China Bank acquires 87.5% of Manila Bank. China Bank is partly owned by Henry Sy’s SM Investments Corporation, the same holding firm that owns majority shares of Henry Sy’s own Banco de Oro and BDO’s new acquisition Equitable PCI. Talk about an M&A craze. While some may now begin to make side comments to the effect of ‘Wow, these banks must now be huge’, this still isn’t entirely true.
Philippine Banks (even the largest ones, traditionally Metrobank and BPI) are small in comparison to the banks of our neighboring countries such as Indonesia (e.g. Metrobank’s 648,787 million pesos or 13,952 million USD pales in comparision to Bank Negara Indonesia’s 169,415,573 million rupiah or 18,782 million USD, approximately only 73% of the size of the Indonesian bank and BNI isn’t even Indonesia’s largest). Comparing our largest bank by assets (Metrobank) with Indonesia’s largest bank by assets (Bank Mandiri), we barely halve the latter’s size at approximately 54%.
Well, surely one can argue that, in terms of fair share vis-a-vis population size, one would only expect Indonesian banks to be bigger than Philippine banks. Let’s take Krung Thai Bank, then, Thailand’s second largest bank by assets. Metrobank is only half the size by assets of the Thai runner-up. Note that the Thai population does not match the Philippine population by a small but statistically significant margin.
See also this (old) circa 2000 Asiaweek ranking of the region’s largest banks.
Topics: Business | 1 Comment »
Continuing Chicken&Egg#1: A Tango or a Tangle?
By philobean | June 24, 2007
Check out Carmen N. Pedrosa’s June 23 column on the Philippine Star. It begins with an interesting observation on the fabled power of the media to shape public opinion. Here’s a little teaser:
When asked about the circulation of a certain newspaper which has made hay with screaming headlines, half-truths and a deliberate intent to set the agenda of this country, he said ‘no comment’. The market is already deciding he said, meaning more and more readers are shying from that newspaper. Its editors may think otherwise but there is no arguing with the market. So if you are one of those who are puzzled why despite the media hype, there are no protests in the streets or excitement about the senatorial elections that just passed, there’s your answer. From hereon media will not decide how people want to react to news or opinion. And then of course there is the Internet which has truly empowered individuals with information available 24 hours daily.
Click here to read the full article.
Topics: A little political | No Comments »
Irony 1: The Cycle of Unemployment
By philobean | June 23, 2007
The economists say the labor market is characterized by job surplus (or conversely undersupply of talent). Note the use of the word ‘talent’ and not the word ‘labor’. Most fresh graduates, the companies argue, are underqualified. They simply do not have the skills to perform the duties a job would require. Fair enough. But this begs a question–is there any fresh graduate out there who, upon entering the workforce, is at that point sufficiently skilled to take on the job without need for at least some form of training?
Taking this line of thinking further, we in turn ask, if other companies (albeit few and far between) are willing to ‘invest’ in training fresh graduates, why aren’t you? Most posts for job vacanies require some form of work experience. If a conservative estimate of 50% of all jobs require work experience (something fresh grads are bound *not* to have), then even though (let us say) 120 jobs are available for (let us say) 80 fresh graduates [this sounds like an oversupply of jobs, doesn’t it?], there would only be 60 jobs the 80 graduates are qualified to apply for. Is this characteristic of job surplus, underqualified labor, or neither?
If work experience remains a strict requirement for jobs, then near all fresh graduates would remain immutably underqualified. While near all fresh graduates are underqualified (this taken to mean that they need further training to carry out their jobs adequately), I would reckon only a minority of the fresh graduates are grossly underqualified so as to render them incomptent without recourse. Only in the final case will the industry’s standing rationalization hold its weight. Otherwise…
(I wouldn’t want to jump the gun. So, let’s wait and see, shant we?)
Topics: A little political, Personal | 5 Comments »