Recently one of our JRF's came up with a interesting conjecture-
"There exists a 'ONE-TO-ONE' correspondence between eating 'VAAT' and having 'BRAINS'.
As is always true it found its criticism. Some other 'NON-VAAT-EATING' JRF's conclude that the "ONLY-IF" part does not hold with PROBABILITY 1.
We request more information on this intriguing new research!!!!!
Old-Hostel
??????
This looks to be exactly the type of research idea that is provision for the budding economist's little grey cells. This can be a pertinent question in the realm of labour supply, besides having important biological implications. I have something to add to this, something I've learned not after being in a relationship for five years with economics, but out of 23 years of existence upon this planet. There is a positive relation between 'vaat' and the belly. Unlike its impact on brains which can be difficult to establish, the effect of 'vaat' on the one of the most sensuous zones of the body can be quite easily observed. Don't ask me details about this correspondence.
ReplyDeleteAAARRE.. we have got one more conjecture..viz BOSS' conjecture: "(Excepting rare exception) The Growth of Belly is directly proportional to the amount of VAAT eaten by a person everyday."
ReplyDeleteBut the first contradictory example that comes to my mind is you!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeletehey, i guess 'bhaat' is more suitable than 'vaat'... unless you are more interested in वाट लगाना rather than discussing the Granger causality(i am leaving more scope, -ve as well as +ve, and both way causation) between भात and दिमाग...
ReplyDeletenotes- 1. its causality not casualty(its confusing in this context, atleast to me)..
2. sorry for using hindi words, mother tongue captures the feel.. i hope begalis will agree with me...
carry on.. i will come up with more details later...