The Karnaugh map (K-map for short) is a method to simplify Boolean algebra expressions. The Karnaugh map reduces the need for extensive calculations by taking advantage of humans' pattern-recognition capability, also permitting the rapid identification and elimination of potential race conditions.
I am starting this post with a definition of K-maps to give some context about a recent blog post written by a friend, which compared the Boolean states of variables used in K map to the bread winning(1) and homemaking(0) roles that Adam and Eve would play in their family lives. The short gist of the long post was that couples would evolve and transit across these states 00 01 11 10, ie. end in a state where Eve would be the bread winner and Adam would be the homemaker of the family.
The blog post was probably attempting to solve the equation of happy marriages (analogous to Boolean Algebra Expressions) by assigning Boolean values to roles Adams and Eves would play after marriage.
Whether or not the above post made logical sense to me, I must say that I admired the creativity involved in tying together boolean algebra concepts with the views of how relationships would be in the future. I feel like if this Adam indeed followed the words in his post he would end up being a frustrated/grumbling homemaker ten years down the lane, only to see all his cherished career dreams crushed and probably pining over children who have outgrown their childhood lives and have instead moved on with their own adult lives.
With these thoughts I am tempted to redefine the Boolean states as below with genuine hopes of sharing my 2 cents worth realisation on relationships.
True state(1):
 |
| Adam(1) |
With all due respect, the well meaning friend was probably writing the post in a great spirit of feminist liberation. I am tempted to define such kinds of "Modern" Adams as "Adam: the extreme feminist" or 1 or true state! :)
False state(0):
In my recent trip to India I overheard this below conversation in a temple premise in Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu. I am sharing this to introduce the other kind of Adams "Adam: the anti-feminist" or 0 or false state! :)
Adam(0) : Sir, I am looking for a bride for my friend. He has a good job and earns pretty well.
Foo : Wow, good for him. So what kind of bride are you looking for your friend.
Adam(0) : Sir, nothing in particular. A girl(raised like the little one on left) preferably NOT educated more than 10 std or high school would be an ideal bride for my friend.
I was passively hearing this conversation and must say that I was really tempted to ask whether the anti-feminist Adam was indeed looking for a bride for his friend or for a maid to only raise a family and do household chores. However being aware of the attitude of people in rural India to some extent I decided to keep mum and not let my mind wander away from peaceful thoughts of god at the temple :). I instead felt obligated to thank my stars for not being raised in such an environment.
Now, having redefined the Boolean states lets go back to our initial definition of K maps. The word "
race condition" in the above definition caught my attention in particular and the following realisation dawned to me. These below questions raced across my head first before leading me to my refreshed sense of realisation :)
- In the modern world are Adam and Eve delusion-ally running some sort of race between themselves as to who is better or who is one level up in the relationship?
- Do they even realise that this unwitting race could potentially be destroying the happiness in their romantic lives analogous to the cliche of "falling" in love rather than "rising" in love ?
- Can Adam handle/feel non-threatened by a prospective Eve who may be as good as or maybe even better than him in the professional arena?
- Can Eve handle/feel non-threatened by a prospective Adam who maybe as good as or maybe even better than her in child rearing/cooking/homemaking arena?
With these questions in mind the "don't care" condition (defined as below) concept of K-maps crossed my mind and I realised a possible solution to this issue had struck my mind.
K maps also allow easy minimisations of functions whose truth tables include "don't care" conditions (that is, sets of inputs for which the designer doesn't care what the output is). They are usually indicated on the map with a dash or X.
This in turn made me imagine the possibility of WHAT IF the roles of Adam and Eve were like don't care conditions marked with an X?
- What if Adam and Eve learnt to not stereotype/dictate each others responsibilities and instead mutually promote their growth by enabling them to follow their dreams and ambitions?
- Could they both learn to compromise and juggle the roles of bread winner and homemaker ?Something along the lines of Adam focusing on bread winning while Eve is busy child bearing/nurturing and later on switching roles?
Redefining the happiness quotient in a healthy relationship with the below
integration formula . (Click "integration" if interested in a definition)
Happiness Quotient Q = 
- where Q between Adam and Eve would be quantified by the area beneath the curve formed by the function f(x) between the interval a and b ranging between 0 and 1. Like you may have guessed, 0 would represent the homemaker and 1 would represent the bread winning role/state. x and y axis represents the lives of Adam and Eve in which the roles they play will be constantly changing between 0 and 1 with time.
Compromise may be the most important and often most misunderstood word in sustaining happy relationships.
It just needs some wisdom and maturity to be able to look at the bigger picture and realise that by compromising you are not giving up or giving in ~ you are just seeking balance in the relationship!
Benefits of this proposed solution are many. Listing below a key few
- Adam and Eve would be two mature self sufficient individuals who would be in a relationship based solely on true love and compatibility instead of being together for dependency reasons(example: Eve need not always depend on Adam for resources and Adam need not always depend on Eve for food etc etc ).
- The partnership will truly tap into and promote both of them to grow as a person instead of diminishing their innate abilities.
- The word "divorce" would be unknown.
- Natural calamities like death/accidental loss of one(touch-wood) would have relatively lesser impact on either of them.
| The beauty in this art of compromise lies in the fact that it can be applied to any relationship. |
|
I feel like if Adam and Eve truly realised the beauty in the art of compromise, their lives together would not have to be compared to complex Boolean Algebra/ Integration concepts and would instead be as simple and wonderful as the below quote :)!
In a true partnership, the kind worth striving for, the kind worth insisting on, and even, frankly, worth divorcing over, both people try to give as much or even a little more than they get. "Deserves" is not the point. And "owes" is certainly not the point. The point is to make the other person as happy as we can, because their happiness adds to ours. The point is -- in the right hands, everything that you give, you get.
Happy Valentines day folks !
