MHB Use Algebraic Manipulation Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter shamieh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manipulation
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on using algebraic manipulation to demonstrate that the sum of minterms for three variables, represented as $$\sum m(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)$$, equals $$x1 + x2 + x3$$. Participants express confusion over the meaning of the summation notation and how to derive additional terms in the expression. Clarification is provided that the summation excludes the term $$\bar{x}\bar{y}\bar{z}$$, leading to a simplified form of the equation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding foundational concepts and definitions in Boolean algebra to solve such problems effectively. Overall, the thread highlights the challenges of algebraic manipulation in the context of truth tables and minterm notation.
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.
 
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
654
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K