Analysis. Fill in the F column values in the truth table for the circuit.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around filling in the F column values in a truth table for a circuit involving logical operations, specifically focusing on the NAND gate and XOR operations. Participants are checking each other's work and clarifying the logic behind the operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 presents an initial attempt to fill in the truth table, with specific values for the F column based on logical operations.
  • Post 2 introduces the Sheffer stroke (NAND) and provides a corrected truth table, indicating the relationship between the operations involved.
  • Post 3 questions the logic behind the NAND operation, particularly in the context of the truth table values presented in Post 1.
  • Post 4 clarifies the definition of the NAND operation, emphasizing that it is equivalent to "not both" and explains the correct application of DeMorgan's laws.
  • Post 5 acknowledges the misunderstanding and expresses intent to rework the solution based on the clarifications provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the NAND operation and its application in the truth table. There is no consensus reached on the correct values for the F column, as the discussion involves corrections and clarifications rather than a definitive resolution.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the interpretation of logical operations and the application of DeMorgan's laws. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly applying logical definitions in constructing truth tables.

shamieh
Messages
538
Reaction score
0
Fill in the F column values in the truth table for the circuit.
Need someone to check my work.

View attachment 1444

My Answer:
  • x y z | f | x! and y! | x! XOR z|
  • 0 0 0| 0 | 1 | 1
  • 0 0 1| 1 | 1 | 0
  • 0 1 0| 1 | 0 | 1
  • 0 1 1| 0 | 0 | 0
  • 1 0 0| 0 | 0 | 0
  • 1 0 1| 1 | 0 | 1
  • 1 1 0| 1 | 1 | 0
  • 1 1 1| 0 | 1 | 1
 

Attachments

  • photo.JPG
    photo.JPG
    25.8 KB · Views: 111
Technology news on Phys.org
So, let's define the $\uparrow$ symbol as the Sheffer stroke, which corresponds to the NAND logic gate you have there. Then $f=(x \uparrow y) \oplus (x \oplus z)$. The truth table is then
$$
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
x &y &z &x \uparrow y &x \oplus z &(x \uparrow y) \oplus (x \oplus z) \\ \hline
0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &1 \\
0 &0 &1 &1 &1 &0 \\
0 &1 &0 &1 &0 &1 \\
0 &1 &1 &1 &1 &0 \\
1 &0 &0 &1 &1 &0 \\
1 &0 &1 &1 &0 &1 \\
1 &1 &0 &0 &1 &1 \\
1 &1 &1 &0 &0 &0
\end{array}
$$
 
Okay, I see where I went wrong. But you're saying x NAND y in the first row is 0 NAND 0 which is really 1 AND 1 = 1. I get that. Then you are saying in the 2nd row the same thing 0 NAND 0 = 1 because it's really 1 AND 1. Then in the 3rd row you are saying 0 NAND 1 which is really 1 AND 0 = 1. But how does that = 1? 1 AND 0 = 0. It only equals 1 if both are 1.
 
shamieh said:
Okay, I see where I went wrong. But you're saying x NAND y in the first row is 0 NAND 0 which is really 1 AND 1 = 1.

Actually not. The NAND operation means "not both". If I say $x \uparrow y$, or $x$ NAND $y$, that is equivalent to $\overline{xy}$. By DeMorgan, $ \overline{xy}= \bar{x}+ \bar{y}$, not $ \underbrace{\overline{xy}= \bar{x} \bar{y}}_{\text{Wrong!}}$.

I get that. Then you are saying in the 2nd row the same thing 0 NAND 0 = 1 because it's really 1 AND 1. Then in the 3rd row you are saying 0 NAND 1 which is really 1 AND 0 = 1. But how does that = 1? 1 AND 0 = 0. It only equals 1 if both are 1.

Again, this reasoning is flawed. If you need to, calculate NAND's like this: to compute $x \uparrow y$, first compute $xy$, and then negate the result. You cannot compute NAND's by negating the $x$ and $y$ first, and then AND'ing the results.
 
Ahh! I see! So DeMorgans law changes the ANDing of xy to OR, while negating the terms as well. x! + y! ok. Going to re-work it and make sure I get the correct solution. I'll be back (Wait)

- - - Updated - - -

Awsome, thank you for the detailed explanations. (Sun)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K