Use Algebraic Manipulation Part 2

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shamieh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manipulation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the algebraic manipulation of a Boolean expression involving three input variables, x1, x2, and x3. Participants are attempting to understand how to derive a specific expression from a truth table and clarify the notation used in the problem statement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a truth table for three variables and expresses confusion over how to derive the expression $$\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7) = x1 + x2 + x3$$ from it.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of $$\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)$$ and suggests it might represent a sum of minterms, proposing a different notation for clarity.
  • Some participants propose that the expression could be interpreted as a sum of products based on the binary representation of the numbers involved.
  • There is a suggestion that the expression includes all terms except for $$\bar{x}\bar{y}\bar{z}$$, leading to further discussion about the implications of this exclusion.
  • One participant expresses frustration about the lack of clarity in the problem statement and the notation used, emphasizing the importance of understanding the underlying theory before attempting to solve problems.
  • Another participant discusses the complexity of converting a Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) into a Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) and the challenges posed by the number of disjunctions generated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the notation and the meaning of the expression. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of $$\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)$$ or how to proceed with the algebraic manipulation. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential ambiguity in the notation and the need for a clearer definition of $$m(...)$$. There are also concerns about the complexity of the algebraic manipulation involved, particularly when dealing with a large number of terms in the truth table.

shamieh
Messages
538
Reaction score
0
Use algebraic manipulation to show that for three input varibles x1, x2, and x3

$$\sum$$m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7) = x1 + x2 + x3

So far all I have is a truth table with 8 rows because I know 2^3 = 8 (starting at 0 of course, just assume the list I prepared on here is starting at 0 and not 1 - ending at 7.)

  1. x1x2x3
  2. 0 0 0 = 0
  3. 0 0 1 = 1 [x! x! x] +
  4. 0 1 0 = 1 [x! x x!] +
  5. 0 1 1 = 1 [x! x x] +
  6. 1 0 0 = 1 [x x! x!] +
  7. 1 0 1 = 1 [x x! x] +
  8. 1 1 0 = 1 [x x x!] +
  9. 1 1 1 = 1 [x x x] +

So how do we go from:
= $$(x1x2x3+x1x2x3+x1x2x3+x1x2x3)+ (x1x2x3+x1x2x3+x1x2x3+x1x2x3) +(x1x2x3+x1x2x3+x1x2x3+x1x2x3)$$ <-- WHERE do these extra FOUR terms come out of nowhere??Here is the final solution. Just don't know how they got the four extra terms OR how they got there...
= x1+ x3+ x2

I am lost in the dark...(Emo)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not clear to me what $\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)$ means. Is that
$$\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)=\bar{x} \bar{y} \bar{z}+\bar{x} y \bar{z}+\dots?$$
Are you summing all the terms except one? As you can see, I've changed your notation of $x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}$ to $x,y,z$, as they're much faster to type.
 
Ackbach said:
It's not clear to me what $\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)$ means. Is that
$$\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)=\bar{x} \bar{y} \bar{z}+\bar{x} y \bar{z}+\dots?$$
I think it is $\sum_{i=1}^7x^{b_2(i)}y^{b_1(i)}z^{b_0(i)}$ where $b_i(n)$ is the coefficient of $2^i$ in the binary expansion of $n$, i.e., the $i$th binary digit from the right, counting from $i=0$; $x^1=x$ and $x^0=\bar{x}$. Thus, \[\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)= \bar{x}\bar{y}z+\bar{x}y\bar{z}+\dots+xyz\]
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I think it is $\sum_{i=1}^7x^{b_2(i)}y^{b_1(i)}z^{b_0(i)}$ where $b_i(n)$ is the coefficient of $2^i$ in the binary expansion of $n$, i.e., the $i$th binary digit from the right, counting from $i=0$; $x^1=x$ and $x^0=\bar{x}$. Thus, \[\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)= \bar{x}\bar{y}z+\bar{x}y\bar{z}+\dots+xyz\]

So it's every term except $\bar{x}\bar{y}\bar{z}$?
 
The way I wrote it is exactly how I was given the question on my homework, as well as in the book. So I am just as lost as you Ach...Lol:confused:
 
Ackbach said:
So it's every term except $\bar{x}\bar{y}\bar{z}$?
Yes. Thus, both this DNF and $x+y+z$ are false iff $x=y=z=0$. In fact, I don't know what $m(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ is, but it seems that instead of $\sum m(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ one should write $\sum_{i=1}^nm(i)$ or $m(b_1,\dots,b_n)$.

Converting a DNF into a CNF is simple in principle: apply repeatedly distributivity of conjunction over disjunction, merge disjunctions of the same literal and remove disjunction with complementary literals (e.g., $x$ and $\bar{x}$). Unfortunately, a DNF with 7 conjunctions and 3 literals in each conunctions generates $3^7=2187$ disjunctions, most of which are vacuously true. We need a meta-argument in English about a formal derivation, which is a series of equalities consisting of applications of Boolean laws. It seems that it is easiest to still go through truth tables. If necessary, I'll continue later.

shamieh said:
The way I wrote it is exactly how I was given the question on my homework, as well as in the book.
To be honest, I resent such remarks. I don't doubt that both the textbook and the homework statement used m(...), but I am sure that the textbook, as well as your instructor during the lectures, defined it earlier, probably gave several examples of this concept and discussed it in other ways. All it takes is going back and studying the theory before attempting to solve exercises, which in general is impossible to do without knowing the theory. If m(...) is indeed undefined, then you can not only complain to your instructor, but write to the textbook author, who will probably will be very glad to find this omission and will include it into later editions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K