MHB How Can Algebraic Manipulation Prove the Consensus Property in Logic Circuits?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shamieh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manipulation
Click For Summary
Algebraic manipulation can prove the consensus property in logic circuits, specifically the equation xy + yz + x!z = xy + x!z. The key step involves recognizing that adding the term (x + x!) does not change the equation's truth value because x + x! equals true (T). This allows for the introduction of T into the equation, which simplifies the expression without altering its validity. Understanding this principle is crucial for applying algebraic rules effectively in logic circuit design. Mastery of these concepts enhances problem-solving skills in electrical engineering contexts.
shamieh
Messages
538
Reaction score
0
Some background: I am in EE 280 Design of Logic Circuits.

Problem: Use algebraic manipulation to prove that xy +yz +x!z = xy + x!z. (Note that this is the consensus property which is: xy + yz + x!z = xy + x!z)

+ mean OR, ! mean NOT.

Please help! I am lost. I do have the rules near me (x AND 1 = x etc.. as well as the "Single Variable Theorems") If someone could walk me through solving this that would be great and I would be forever thankful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try this:
$$xy+\bar{x}z+yz=xy+\bar{x}z+(x+\bar{x})yz.$$
 
Awesome, just figured it out. I solved and everything. I have a question tho. Where exactly does the rule (x + x!) come in play? I guess my question essentially is; how do I know that I can randomly put in a (x + x!) in the 2nd term. What is the property or rule that tells me I can do that legally? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question I'm just trying to understand what I'm actually doing versus just solving the equation.

Thanks again Ackbach,
-Sham(Ninja)
 
Well, $x+\bar{x}=\text{T}$, and $Tz=z$. So you can always multiply anything by $T$ and not change the truth value.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
11K
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K