Anonymous user
Talk:Ternary logic: Difference between revisions
m
→another ternary truth table: added indentations.
(→Variable_truthfulness: some explanations) |
m (→another ternary truth table: added indentations.) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 57:
: Well, for now it doesn't have a good place to go to. As to not being ternary logic per se, it can be reduced to one pretty easily though: define 1 as TRUE, 0 as FALSE, and anything in between as MAYBE, then the operator tables can be reproduced exactly. Since the "variable truths" are just [[wp:Probability|probabilities]], I'm not sure what more refs are needed without making it appear more complicated than necessary.
: This C entry was sort of targeting the kudos part of the task. To me, the most interesting place to use a "maybe" would be at the control flows (<code>if3</code>), but that requires knowledge of ''how'' ambiguous such an ambiguity is, hence the numeric values. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 14:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
<s>I suggest: A good place for it to go to is as a "Draft Task" with appropriate details of what the task is rather then complicate [[Ternary_logic]]. Also: A brief description of "variable truths" (or even [[wp:Qubit|Qubit]]s) might help the draft task.</s> On rethinking, your point about the ''"C entry was sort of targeting the kudos"'' is about right. Indeed I have yet to see a more pratical use for Ternary Logic. ¢ However - maybe - [[wp:Balanced_ternary|Balanced Ternary]] Arithmetic appears to have an advantage, as Binary Addition is takes 58% more iterations, and Binary Multiplication takes 150% more iterations then Balanced Ternary. ¢
[[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 09:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
: Eh which C code are we talking about? This topic was about using floating point to represent probability (or so I thought), so the natural thing is using range 0 to 1. I don't see how -1 got in here? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 11:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
==another ternary truth table==
I found another ternary truth table that I used for validation of some of the other functions for the REXX example (which shows more functions) at:
::: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78370674/31/A-6-2-AND-XOR-OR-XNOR-NAND
:::::: ''Ternary Computing Testbed 3-Trit Computer Architecture'' by Jeff Connelly
:::::: Computer Engineering Department August 29<sup>th</sup>, 2008
:::::: which is on page 59: A.6.2. AND, XOR, OR, XNOR, NAND
:::::::::::::::::::: -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 06:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
| |||