DOCSLIB.ORG

Choosing Logical Connectives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Choosing Logical Connectives Choosing Logical Connectives 1. Too Few Connectives?: We have chosen to use only 5 logical connectives in our constructed language of logic, L1 (they are: ‘¬’, ‘’, ‘‘, ‘‘, and ‘‘). But, we might ask, are these enough? Consider: For 2-line truth tables, L1 only has ONE connective (namely, ‘¬’). But there are actually FOUR possible connectives that operate on single atomic statements: P C1 (%P) C2 (@P) C3 (¬P) C4 (#P) T T T F F F T F T F In other words, we could have chosen to include a connective in our language L1 (call it ‘#’), which is such that, when P is true, #P is false, and when P is false, #P is false. Why didn’t we? But, it gets worse: For 4-line truth tables, which operate on 2 sentence letters, we have chosen to use only 4 connectives (namely, ‘‘, ‘‘, ‘‘, and ‘‘), but it turns out that there are actually SIXTEEN possible 2-letter connectives: P Q C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 T T T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F F T T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F F F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F And there are actually 256 possible connectives which operate on 3 letter-sentences (the number of possible connectives will be 2 raised to the 2n power (i.e., 22^n), where n is the number of atomic statements being operated on), but L1 contains zero of them. Indeed, there are an infinite number of possible logical connectives that we could have chosen to include in L1, but we chose only FIVE! When we ask, “Are five connectives enough?”, what we are really asking is, “Is L1 expressively complete?” That means: Expressively Complete: A formal language, L, is expressively complete iff any wff containing any truth-functional connective can be translated into a wff that is logically equivalent to it, but which contains only connectives that are part of L. 1 In other words, for any of the 20 connectives we just saw truth tables for, L1 should be able to express a symbolized statements that operates on P and Q in those ways, to deliver exactly those truth tables. If L1 CANNOT do that, then there are some statements that L1 simply cannot express—and that is bad… It would mean that L1 is “incomplete.” But, let’s look at the 16 possible 2-letter operators again: P Q C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 T T T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F F T T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F F F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F Are any of these 16 connectives familiar? Four of them should be. They are: C3 = “” C7 = “” C9 = “” C15 = “” Additionally, four of the connectives above are the contradictories of these four. For instance, compare C8 with C9. They are contradictory. That is, their truth values are the opposite on every line of the truth table. So, since C9 represents ‘P Q’, C8 represents ‘¬(P Q)’. Take a look and try to find the contradictories of the other three connectives. C3’s contradictory is C14. C7’s contradictory is C10. And C15’s contradictory is C2. So, now we have: P Q C1 ¬(P Q) P Q C4 C5 C6 P Q ¬(P Q) P Q ¬(P Q) C11 C12 C13 ¬(P Q) P Q C16 T T T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F F T T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F F F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F Let’s look at some of the others. Start with C5. What sort of formula involving ‘P’ and ‘Q’ would ONLY come out false when ‘Q’ is true and ‘P’ is false? That should look familiar. It’s ‘Q P’ of course! So, C5 represents the truth function of ‘Q P’, and therefore, it’s contradictory, C12, represents ‘¬(Q P)’. Now take a look at C13. It simply has the same truth function as ‘P’. And C11 is just ‘Q’. So, in turn, their contradictories (C4 and C6) are just ‘¬P’ and ‘¬Q’. 2 P Q C1 ¬(P Q) P Q ¬P Q P ¬Q P Q ¬(P Q) P Q ¬(P Q) Q ¬(Q P) P ¬(P Q) P Q C16 T T T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F F T T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F F F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F All that are left are C1 and C16. Notice that C1 is just a tautologous statement and C16 is just a self-contradictory statement. (That is C1 always comes out true, and C16 always comes out false). So, for C1, we need nothing more than ‘P ¬P’, while for C16 we just need ‘P ¬P’. We’re done! P Q P ¬P ¬(P Q) P Q ¬P Q P ¬Q P Q ¬(P Q) P Q ¬(P Q) Q ¬(Q P) P ¬(P Q) P Q P ¬P T T T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F F T T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F F F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F Conclusion: Assuming we could continue in this way, representing all 256 of the 3-letter operators, and the infinite number of 4-letter, 5-letter, etc. operators (and, the short story is, we COULD do this), it turns out, L1 is expressively complete. Think about that: With just 5 little operators, L1 is able to express an infinite number of English sentences! 2. Too Many Connectives?: Really, though, we could make do with LESS THAN five operators. One of the five in particular should stand out as unnecessary. Which one? The bi-conditional! In fact, when we defined the bi-conditional, we said that it was really just two conditionals. In other words: P Q (P Q) (Q P) So, the ‘‘ is really unnecessary. It can just be expressed using ‘‘ and ‘‘, since the two statements above are logically equivalent. So, we could have chosen only 4 operators instead of 5. Are there any other unnecessary operators? Well, it turns out that ‘‘ can be expressed in terms of ‘¬’ and ‘‘, such that: P Q ¬(P ¬Q) 3 For instance, if I say, “If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy is a mammal”, this really means the same thing as, “So, it must not be the case that Fluffy is a cat AND NOT a mammal.” Note: If you question this, then draw up a truth table for ’¬(C ¬M)’ and see that it is the same as the truth table for ‘C M’. So, we don’t need ‘’ either. L1 would still be expressively complete even if it just included ‘¬’, ‘’ and ‘’. We could have chosen to express ‘’ and ‘’ as follows: P Q ¬(P ¬Q) P Q ¬(P ¬Q) ¬(Q ¬P) But, wait. The ‘’ isn’t necessary either! It’s reducible to ‘’ and ‘¬’, since: P Q ¬(¬P ¬Q) For instance, if I say that “Timmy is either five or six”, this really just means that “It must NOT be the case that Timmy is not five and not six.” Note: Again, if you question this, then draw up a truth table for ’¬(¬F ¬S)’ and see that it is the same as the truth table for ‘F S’. So, we don’t need ‘’ either! We’ve done away with all but TWO operators! That is, L1 would still be expressively complete if the only two operators were ‘¬’ and ‘’. The Sheffer Stroke: But, it gets crazier. Henry Sheffer (in 1913) pointed out that a language could be expressively complete with just ONE logical connective. It’s called ‘The Sheffer Stroke.’ We represent it with a slash, “|”, and its truth table corresponds to C2, above. So, it turns out that ‘P | Q’ is logically equivalent to ‘¬(P Q)’: P Q ¬(P Q) P | Q T T F F T F T T F T T T F F T T In other words, ‘P Sheffer-Stroke Q’ (or ‘P | Q’) just means ‘Not both P and Q.’ For instance, we might symbolize “Albert and Bertha weren’t both at the party” as ‘A | B’. 4 Note: Notice that, whereas we reduced all 5 logical connectives to 2 connectives, ‘¬’ and ‘’, Sheffer reduces all 5 connectives to ONE connective simply by introducing a NEW connective that is logically equivalent to ‘¬(P Q)’, which contains both ‘¬’ and ‘’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Application: Digital Logic Circuits
    SECTION 2.4 Application: Digital Logic Circuits Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Application: Digital Logic Circuits Switches “in series” Switches “in parallel” Change closed and on are replaced by T, open and off are replaced by F? Application: Digital Logic Circuits • More complicated circuits correspond to more complicated logical expressions. • This correspondence has been used extensively in design and study of circuits. • Electrical engineers use language of logic when refer to values of signals produced by an electronic switch as being “true” or “false.” • Only that symbols 1 and 0 are used • symbols 0 and 1 are called bits, short for binary digits. • This terminology was introduced in 1946 by the statistician John Tukey. Black Boxes and Gates Black Boxes and Gates • Circuits: transform combinations of signal bits (1’s and 0’s) into other combinations of signal bits (1’s and 0’s). • Computer engineers and digital system designers treat basic circuits as black boxes. • Ignore inside of a black box (detailed implementation of circuit) • focused on the relation between the input and the output signals. • Operation of a black box is completely specified by constructing an input/output table that lists all its possible input signals together with their corresponding output signals. Black Boxes and Gates One possible correspondence of input to output signals is as follows: An Input/Output Table Black Boxes and Gates An efficient method for designing more complicated circuits is to build them by connecting less complicated black box circuits. Gates can be combined into circuits in a variety of ways. If the rules shown on the next page are obeyed, the result is a combinational circuit, one whose output at any time is determined entirely by its input at that time without regard to previous inputs.
    [Show full text]
  • Shalack V.I. Semiotic Foundations of Logic
    Semiotic foundations of logic Vladimir I. Shalack abstract. The article offers a look at the combinatorial logic as the logic of signs operating in the most general sense. For this it is proposed slightly reformulate it in terms of introducing and replacement of the definitions. Keywords: combinatory logic, semiotics, definition, logic founda- tions 1 Language selection Let’s imagine for a moment what would be like the classical logic, if we had not studied it in the language of negation, conjunction, dis- junction and implication, but in the language of the Sheffer stroke. I recall that it can be defined with help of negation and conjunction as follows A j B =Df :(A ^ B): In turn, all connectives can be defined with help of the Sheffer stroke in following manner :A =Df (A j A) A ^ B =Df (A j B) j (A j B) A _ B =Df (A j A) j (B j B) A ⊃ B =Df A j (B j B): Modus ponens rule takes the following form A; A j (B j B) . B 226 Vladimir I. Shalack We can go further and following the ideas of M. Sch¨onfinkel to define two-argument infix quantifier ‘jx’ x A j B =Df 8x(A j B): Now we can use it to define Sheffer stroke and quantifiers. x A j B =Df A j B where the variable x is not free in the formulas A and B; y x y 8xA =Df (A j A) j (A j A) where the variable y is not free in the formula A; x y x 9xA =Df (A j A) j (A j A) where the variable y is not free in the formula A.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning with Ambiguity
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Reasoning with Ambiguity Christian Wurm the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract We treat the problem of reasoning with ambiguous propositions. Even though ambiguity is obviously problematic for reasoning, it is no less ob- vious that ambiguous propositions entail other propositions (both ambiguous and unambiguous), and are entailed by other propositions. This article gives a formal analysis of the underlying mechanisms, both from an algebraic and a logical point of view. The main result can be summarized as follows: sound (and complete) reasoning with ambiguity requires a distinction between equivalence on the one and congruence on the other side: the fact that α entails β does not imply β can be substituted for α in all contexts preserving truth. With- out this distinction, we will always run into paradoxical results. We present the (cut-free) sequent calculus ALcf , which we conjecture implements sound and complete propositional reasoning with ambiguity, and provide it with a language-theoretic semantics, where letters represent unambiguous meanings and concatenation represents ambiguity. Keywords Ambiguity, reasoning, proof theory, algebra, Computational Linguistics Acknowledgements Thanks to Timm Lichte, Roland Eibers, Roussanka Loukanova and Gerhard Schurz for helpful discussions; also I want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their many excellent remarks! 1 Introduction This article gives an extensive treatment of reasoning with ambiguity, more precisely with ambiguous propositions. We approach the problem from an Universit¨atD¨usseldorf,Germany Universit¨atsstr.1 40225 D¨usseldorf Germany E-mail: [email protected] 2 Christian Wurm algebraic and a logical perspective and show some interesting surprising results on both ends, which lead up to some interesting philosophical questions, which we address in a preliminary fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 173: Discrete Structures, Spring 2012 Homework 1 Solutions
    CS 173: Discrete Structures, Spring 2012 Homework 1 Solutions This homework contains 3 problems worth a total of 25 points. 1. [1 point] Finding information on Piazza How many pet rats does Margaret’s family have? (Hint: see Piazza.) Solution: Margaret’s family has six pet rats. 2. [4 points] Demographic Survey 3. [20 points] Logic operators The late 19th century philosopher Charles Peirce (rhymes with ‘hearse,’ not ‘fierce’) wrote about a set of logically dual operators and, in his writings, coined the term ‘Ampheck’ to describe them. The two most common Ampheck operators, the Peirce arrow (written ↓ or ⊥ or ∨ by different people) and the Sheffer stroke (written ↑ or | or ∧ by different people), are defined by the following truth table: p q p ↑ q p ↓ q T T F F T F T F F T T F F F T T (a) (4 points) The set of operators {∧, ∨, ¬} is functionally complete, which means that every logical statement can be expressed using only these three operators. Is the smaller set of operators {∨, ¬} also functionally complete? Explain why or why not. Solution: By De Morgan’s laws, ¬(¬p∨¬q) ≡ ¬¬p∧¬¬q ≡ p∧q So every logical statement using the ∧ operator can be rewritten in terms of the ∨ and ¬ operators. Since every logical statement can be expressed in terms of the ∧, ∨, and ¬ operators, this implies that every logical statement can be expressed in terms of the ∨ and ¬ operators, and so {∨, ¬} is functionally complete. (b) (4 points) Express ¬p using only the Sheffer stroke operation ↑. Solution: Note that ¬p is true if and only if p is false.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computer-Verified Monadic Functional Implementation of the Integral
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Theoretical Computer Science 411 (2010) 3386–3402 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Theoretical Computer Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tcs A computer-verified monadic functional implementation of the integral Russell O'Connor, Bas Spitters ∗ Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands article info a b s t r a c t Article history: We provide a computer-verified exact monadic functional implementation of the Riemann Received 10 September 2008 integral in type theory. Together with previous work by O'Connor, this may be seen as Received in revised form 13 January 2010 the beginning of the realization of Bishop's vision to use constructive mathematics as a Accepted 23 May 2010 programming language for exact analysis. Communicated by G.D. Plotkin ' 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Type theory Functional programming Exact real analysis Monads 1. Introduction Integration is one of the fundamental techniques in numerical computation. However, its implementation using floating- point numbers requires continuous effort on the part of the user in order to ensure that the results are correct. This burden can be shifted away from the end-user by providing a library of exact analysis in which the computer handles the error estimates. For high assurance we use computer-verified proofs that the implementation is actually correct; see [21] for an overview. It has long been suggested that, by using constructive mathematics, exact analysis and provable correctness can be unified [7,8]. Constructive mathematics provides a high-level framework for specifying computations (Section 2.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Boolean Logic
    Boolean logic Lecture 12 Contents . Propositions . Logical connectives and truth tables . Compound propositions . Disjunctive normal form (DNF) . Logical equivalence . Laws of logic . Predicate logic . Post's Functional Completeness Theorem Propositions . A proposition is a statement that is either true or false. Whichever of these (true or false) is the case is called the truth value of the proposition. ‘Canberra is the capital of Australia’ ‘There are 8 day in a week.’ . The first and third of these propositions are true, and the second and fourth are false. The following sentences are not propositions: ‘Where are you going?’ ‘Come here.’ ‘This sentence is false.’ Propositions . Propositions are conventionally symbolized using the letters Any of these may be used to symbolize specific propositions, e.g. :, Manchester, , … . is in Scotland, : Mammoths are extinct. The previous propositions are simple propositions since they make only a single statement. Logical connectives and truth tables . Simple propositions can be combined to form more complicated propositions called compound propositions. .The devices which are used to link pairs of propositions are called logical connectives and the truth value of any compound proposition is completely determined by the truth values of its component simple propositions, and the particular connective, or connectives, used to link them. ‘If Brian and Angela are not both happy, then either Brian is not happy or Angela is not happy.’ .The sentence about Brian and Angela is an example of a compound proposition. It is built up from the atomic propositions ‘Brian is happy’ and ‘Angela is happy’ using the words and, or, not and if-then.
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Propositions as Types Citation for published version: Wadler, P 2015, 'Propositions as Types', Communications of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699407 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1145/2699407 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Communications of the ACM General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Propositions as Types ∗ Philip Wadler University of Edinburgh [email protected] 1. Introduction cluding Agda, Automath, Coq, Epigram, F#,F?, Haskell, LF, ML, Powerful insights arise from linking two fields of study previously NuPRL, Scala, Singularity, and Trellys. thought separate. Examples include Descartes’s coordinates, which Propositions as Types is a notion with mystery. Why should it links geometry to algebra, Planck’s Quantum Theory, which links be the case that intuitionistic natural deduction, as developed by particles to waves, and Shannon’s Information Theory, which links Gentzen in the 1930s, and simply-typed lambda calculus, as devel- thermodynamics to communication.
    [Show full text]
  • A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 5 Issue 2 Current Work in Linguistics Article 2 1998 A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis Gerhard Jaeger Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Jaeger, Gerhard (1998) "A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/2 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/2 For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/2 A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis Gerhard J¨ager 1. Introduction The aim of the present paper is to outline a unified account of anaphora and ellipsis phenomena within the framework of Type Logical Categorial Gram- mar.1 There is at least one conceptual and one empirical reason to pursue such a goal. Firstly, both phenomena are characterized by the fact that they re-use semantic resources that are also used elsewhere. This issue is discussed in detail in section 2. Secondly, they show a striking similarity in displaying the characteristic ambiguity between strict and sloppy readings. This supports the assumption that in fact the same mechanisms are at work in both cases. (1) a. John washed his car, and Bill did, too. b. John washed his car, and Bill waxed it.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositional Logic
    Mathematical Logic (Based on lecture slides by Stan Burris) George Voutsadakis1 1Mathematics and Computer Science Lake Superior State University LSSU Math 300 George Voutsadakis (LSSU) Logic January 2013 1 / 86 Outline 1 Propositional Logic Connectives, Formulas and Truth Tables Equivalences, Tautologies and Contradictions Substitution Replacement Adequate Sets of Connectives Disjunctive and Conjunctive Forms Valid Arguments, Tautologies and Satisfiability Compactness Epilogue: Other Propositional Logics George Voutsadakis (LSSU) Logic January 2013 2 / 86 Propositional Logic Connectives, Formulas and Truth Tables Subsection 1 Connectives, Formulas and Truth Tables George Voutsadakis (LSSU) Logic January 2013 3 / 86 Propositional Logic Connectives, Formulas and Truth Tables The Alphabet: Connectives and Variables The following are the basic logical connectives that we use to connect logical statements: Symbol Name Symbol Name 1 true ∧ and 0 false ∨ or ¬ not → implies ↔ iff In the same way that in algebra we use x, y, z,... to stand for unknown or varying numbers, in logic we use the propositional variables P, Q, R,... to stand for unknown or varying propositions or statements; Using the connectives and variables we can construct propositional formulas like ((P → (Q ∨ R)) ∧ ((¬Q) ↔ (1 ∨ P))). George Voutsadakis (LSSU) Logic January 2013 4 / 86 Propositional Logic Connectives, Formulas and Truth Tables Inductive (Recursive) Definition of Propositional Formulas Propositional formulas are formally built as follows: Every propositional variable P is a propositional formula; the constants 0 and 1 are propositional formulas; if F is a propositional formula, then (¬F ) is a propositional formula; if F and G are propositional formulas, then (F ∧ G), (F ∨ G), (F → G) and (F ↔ G) are propositional formulas.
    [Show full text]
  • Topics in Philosophical Logic
    Topics in Philosophical Logic The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Litland, Jon. 2012. Topics in Philosophical Logic. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9527318 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA © Jon Litland All rights reserved. Warren Goldfarb Jon Litland Topics in Philosophical Logic Abstract In “Proof-Theoretic Justification of Logic”, building on work by Dummett and Prawitz, I show how to construct use-based meaning-theories for the logical constants. The assertability-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the logical constants to be given by their introduction rules; the consequence-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the log- ical constants to be given by their elimination rules. I then consider the question: given a set of introduction (elimination) rules , what are the R strongest elimination (introduction) rules that are validated by an assertabil- ity (consequence) conditional meaning-theory based on ? I prove that the R intuitionistic introduction (elimination) rules are the strongest rules that are validated by the intuitionistic elimination (introduction) rules. I then prove that intuitionistic logic is the strongest logic that can be given either an assertability-conditional or consequence-conditional meaning-theory. In “Grounding Grounding” I discuss the notion of grounding. My discus- sion revolves around the problem of iterated grounding-claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinational Circuits
    Combinational Circuits Jason Filippou CMSC250 @ UMCP 06-02-2016 Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 1 / 1 Outline Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 2 / 1 Hardware design levels Hardware design levels Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 3 / 1 Hardware design levels Levels of abstraction for ICs Small Scale Integration: ≈ 10 boolean gates Medium Scale Integration: > 10; ≤ 100 Large Scale Integration: Anywhere between 100 and 30; 000. Very Large Scale Integration: Up to 150; 000. Very Very Large Scale Integration: > 150; 000. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 4 / 1 Hardware design levels Example schematic Figure 1: VLSI schematic for a professional USB interface for Macintosh PCs. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 5 / 1 Hardware design levels SSI Consists of circuits that contain about 10 gates. 16-bit adders. Encoders / Decoders. MUX/DEMUX. ::: All our examples will be at an SSI level. Logic Design is the branch of Computer Science that essentially analyzes the kinds of circuits and optimizations done at an SSI/MSI level. We do not have such a course in the curriculum, but you can expect to be exposed to it if you ever take 411. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 6 / 1 Combinational Circuit Design Combinational Circuit Design Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Circuits 06-02-2016 7 / 1 A sequential circuit is one where this constraint can be violated. Example: Flip-flops (yes, seriously). In this course, we will only touch upon combinational circuits. Combinational Circuit Design Combinational vs Sequential circuits A combinational circuit is one where the output of a gate is never used as an input into it.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Bit Operations
    Logic and bit operations • Computers represent information by bits. • A bit has two possible values, namely zero and one. This meaning of the word comes from binary digit, since zeroes and ones are the digits used in binary representations of numbers. The well-known statistician John Tuley introduced this terminology in 1946. (There were several other suggested words for a binary digit, including binit and bigit, that never were widely accepted.) • A bit can be used to represent a truth value, since there are two truth values, true and false. • A variable is called a Boolean variable if its values are either true or false. • Computer bit operations correspond to the logical connectives. We will also use the notation OR, AND and XOR for _ , ^ and exclusive _. • A bit string is a sequence of zero or more bits. The length of the string is the number of bits in the string. 1 • We can extend bit operations to bit strings. We define bitwise OR, bitwise AND and bitwise XOR of two strings of the same length to be the strings that have as their bits the OR, AND and XOR of the corresponding bits in the two strings. • Example: Find the bitwise OR, bitwise AND and bitwise XOR of the bit strings 01101 10110 11000 11101 Solution: The bitwise OR is 11101 11111 The bitwise AND is 01000 10100 and the bitwise XOR is 10101 01011 2 Boolean algebra • The circuits in computers and other electronic devices have inputs, each of which is either a 0 or a 1, and produce outputs that are also 0s and 1s.
    [Show full text]