A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > A line following robot has to be designed wit...

Join for Free

Join for Free

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.Q. With which of the following statements, would the author agree most?

View answer

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.Q. According to Popper, the statement “Scientific beliefs are universal in character” implies that

View answer

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.Q. Which of the following would be the most appropriate conclusion?

View answer

Directions for Questions Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons. According to Popper, the statement Scientific beliefs are universal in character implies that

View answer

Directions for Questions Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons. With which of the following statements, would the author agree most?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CAT

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion?.

Solutions for A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion?, a detailed solution for A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? has been provided alongside types of A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A line following robot has to be designed with the following specifications.  Robot has four sensors in a fixed linear array (placed perpendicular to the line) with the spacing between the sensors such that at most 3 sensors will be on the line at a time. On the other hand, there can be instances with a minimum of only one outer sensor on the line.  Whenever the two center sensors are on the line, the robot should be moved forward; otherwise turning should be carried out to align the robot with the line. When the robot meets end of the line it should stop.  Robot has two independent motors (connected to wheels) to generate motion. o Bothe motors on Forward motion o Left motor on, right motor off  Right turn o Left motor off, right motor on Left turn o Both motors off No motion? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam