Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
11/30/06 19:31
Read: times


 		 #128792 - interestingly...
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Ive just spent an afternoon explaining to someone how DeMorgans law allows us to view logic functions in different ways depending on how you want to look at it.I certainly dont like his use of the tilde ~ for active low signals.

List of 26 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
all agree on clarity of code, why the resistance t            01/01/70 00:00      
   I totally agree, but...            01/01/70 00:00      
      I did not            01/01/70 00:00      
         Haha..            01/01/70 00:00      
      the author said, "Here there be dragons"            01/01/70 00:00      
         Only if the input is true low            01/01/70 00:00      
            Isn't that what the article says?            01/01/70 00:00      
   interestingly...            01/01/70 00:00      
      to each his own            01/01/70 00:00      
         tilde ~ for active low signals            01/01/70 00:00      
         The tilde was pooh-poohed in the '70's            01/01/70 00:00      
      Tilde as a logical negation            01/01/70 00:00      
         Deja vu all over again            01/01/70 00:00      
         Its just the same reason that lynn has .            01/01/70 00:00      
         yes, is that not the ultimate stupidity of the sch            01/01/70 00:00      
            Logic! Philosophy? Electronics? It's still a rose.            01/01/70 00:00      
   DeMorgans theorem in a nutshell            01/01/70 00:00      
      very good, but what are you?            01/01/70 00:00      
   NOT(short OR fat)            01/01/70 00:00      
      NOT OR?            01/01/70 00:00      
         AND...            01/01/70 00:00      
            ... but is he BALD?            01/01/70 00:00      
               Would hardly make a difference...            01/01/70 00:00      
   I may be wrong but i get the impression            01/01/70 00:00      
      oh yes, I recall            01/01/70 00:00      
   that is a shortfall.            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List