Can Karnaugh Maps Simplify Digital Logic Expressions Without Static Hazards?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of a digital logic expression using Karnaugh Maps (K-Maps) and the implications of static hazards in the resulting expressions. Participants explore the potential for further simplification and the practical challenges associated with static hazards in digital circuit design.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the original expression and their attempt at simplification using a K-Map, questioning whether further simplification is possible.
  • Another participant suggests that the original expression can be simplified further, proposing an alternative expression with fewer operations.
  • A later reply indicates that the simplifications proposed still contain static hazards and provides an alternative method for circling regions on the K-Map to achieve a hazard-free expression.
  • Further elaboration on static hazard theory is provided, highlighting the practical difficulties in aligning theoretical definitions with real-world circuit behavior, including variations in gate delays and temperature effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simplification of the expression and the presence of static hazards. There is no consensus on the best approach to eliminate hazards or the effectiveness of the proposed simplifications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about gate delays, the ideal conditions for static hazard definitions, and the practical implications of using different types of gates in circuit design.

cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38

Homework Statement


Draw the schematic circuit diagram that implements the following expression using as few basic gates as possible (AND, OR, NOT, XOR, NAND, NOR).

The prime denotes the complement:

f = w^\prime z^\prime + w^\prime xy + wx^\prime z + wxyz

The Attempt at a Solution



From the truth table, I drew a Karnaugh Map (attached and linked to below. I'm just wondering whether I did it right. From the K-Map, the resulting simplification is:

f = w^\prime z^\prime + w^\prime xy + wx^\prime z + wyz

Is there no further simplification?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9333/hw14bkmapwm3.th.png
 

Attachments

  • HW1_4b_KMAP.jpg
    HW1_4b_KMAP.jpg
    8.6 KB · Views: 540
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
f = w^\prime z^\prime + w^\prime xy + wx^\prime z + wxyz

The original equation has 15 operations, removing that last x gives you 14. the following gives you 11. There might be other things you could do, but I don't see any right off.

s = xy

f = w^\prime ( z^\prime + s) + w (x^\prime z + sz)
 
cepheid said:
From the truth table, I drew a Karnaugh Map (attached and linked to below. I'm just wondering whether I did it right. From the K-Map, the resulting simplification is:

f = w^\prime z^\prime + w^\prime xy + wx^\prime z + wyz

Is there no further simplification?

If you circled the regions on the map like this:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/3419/3termswhazardqs5.th.jpg
you would have obtained a simpler expression:
f = w^\prime z^\prime + xyz + wx^\prime z

BUT this expression, as well as yours, has static hazard.

To eliminate the static hazard there must not be any pair of adjacent but disjointed regions circled on the map. So you must circle the regions like this:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5679/3termswohazardtv7.th.jpg
which will give you the simplest expression without hazards:
f = w^\prime z^\prime + xyz + wx^\prime z + w^\prime xy + wyz
 
Last edited by a moderator:
antonantal said:
If you circled the regions on the map like this:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/3419/3termswhazardqs5.th.jpg
you would have obtained a simpler expression:
f = w^\prime z^\prime + xyz + wx^\prime z

BUT this expression, as well as yours, has static hazard.

To eliminate the static hazard there must not be any pair of adjacent but disjointed regions circled on the map. So you must circle the regions like this:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5679/3termswohazardtv7.th.jpg
which will give you the simplest expression without hazards:
f = w^\prime z^\prime + xyz + wx^\prime z + w^\prime xy + wyz

Just to expand on this a bit, the thing about static hazard theory is that it is difficult to match with practice. This is because each type of gate has a different delay, each type's delay varies differently with temperature, and runs have different delays. Also, the above definition of static hazard either assumes NOT operations are infinitely fast, or that you buffer all signals with either an inverter a non-inverter but never both and assume their delays are equal. In practice, edge sensitive logic is either made synchronous (clocked), run lengths are adjusted accordingly and fingers are crossed, or off-the-shelf programmable ICs are used which are hopefully fairly hazard-less (and fingers are still crossed).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
52K