| General > General Technical Chat |
| How to pronounce XOR...really? |
| << < (12/13) > >> |
| TimFox:
The Motorola books on ECL logic gates used to have two sets of tables for positive logic (more positive level = Boolean 1) and negative logic (more negative level = 1), since they were designed to run at -5.2 V Vee and 0 Vcc. |
| 16bitanalogue:
--- Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 07, 2021, 12:20:10 pm --- IEEE 91 provides a standard for drawing symbols. It doesn't dictate the mathematics though it is clear about the the function of the exclusive or operator. --- End quote --- This weak. You are one of these supposed greybeards yet you are whining about "younger engineers" while completely failing to do any, and I mean ANY cursory research. Pull up the standard, and read pg. 62. It is not definitive, but it is merely one piece to why there are 2 interpretations of the XOR gate when multiple inputs are concerned. --- Quote ---I'm sorry you consider the need for accuracy as ranting. It's a little odd that you are lackadaisical yet bring a national standard to the table. The problem with standards is that you can have conflicting ones. What IEEE say, IEC may say differently. --- End quote --- Seems to me that everyone who actually has needed to implement logic is ok with understanding that there are 2 different interpretations of a multi-input XOR gate. I will leave it up to standards body and as long as one is referenced then conversations can be clearer. Not based on some rando on an Internet forum whining about "young engineers" or "you are pronouncing it wrong in my irrelevant opinion therefore you don't understand how something works." --- Quote ---By all means call your parity function a "zor", but write it as such to avoid confusion with xor. --- End quote --- I am ok with calling a 2-input or multi-input "ZOR" because I know how it works and I also understand the 'conflicting' viewpoints. I mean, get this, son. A 2 input XOR does fit to the "exclusive" meaning, but it is also only high when a single input is high. You know, single input...ONE input. Isn't one an odd number? hmmmmm....This is not a subject that is as detrimental in regards to language as you are trying to make it out to be. We could go at length over this, but the reality is, as others have already shown, there are actually real IC's that are multi-input XOR gates. This has been discussed as well, even a cursory Google search literally just did in 30 seconds pulls up discussions and a website going through the arithmetic. https://mindhunter74.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/xor-the-interesting-gate/ https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/93713/how-is-an-xor-with-more-than-2-inputs-supposed-to-work https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/74LVC1G386.pdf Logisim, LogicWorks, actual coding, generally point toward the 'odd-parity' function for a multi-input XOR. You may feel passionate about this topic, but what you are NOT is the definitive authority on the subject. Know your lane and stay in it. I have noticed that the "older generation" on this forum likes to throw shade, but offers no legitimate argumentation in return. "I think, I feel, I believe..." It is such profound sadness that someone with supposedly decades of knowledge and experience ends up bring so very little to the table. I sincerely hope you are retired and do not mentor anyone because you would do them a disservice. If you are not retired, please PM me your details that way if I ever see your resume, I will toss it is the trash. That ends my snippy rant. |
| JohnnyMalaria:
--- Quote from: 16bitanalogue on March 07, 2021, 06:23:54 pm --- --- Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 07, 2021, 12:20:10 pm --- IEEE 91 provides a standard for drawing symbols. It doesn't dictate the mathematics though it is clear about the the function of the exclusive or operator. --- End quote --- This weak. You are one of these supposed greybeards yet you are whining about "younger engineers" while completely failing to do any, and I mean ANY cursory research. Pull up the standard, and read pg. 62. It is not definitive, but it is merely one piece to why there are 2 interpretations of the XOR gate when multiple inputs are concerned. --- Quote ---I'm sorry you consider the need for accuracy as ranting. It's a little odd that you are lackadaisical yet bring a national standard to the table. The problem with standards is that you can have conflicting ones. What IEEE say, IEC may say differently. --- End quote --- Seems to me that everyone who actually has needed to implement logic is ok with understanding that there are 2 different interpretations of a multi-input XOR gate. I will leave it up to standards body and as long as one is referenced then conversations can be clearer. Not based on some rando on an Internet forum whining about "young engineers" or "you are pronouncing it wrong in my irrelevant opinion therefore you don't understand how something works." --- Quote ---By all means call your parity function a "zor", but write it as such to avoid confusion with xor. --- End quote --- I am ok with calling a 2-input or multi-input "ZOR" because I know how it works and I also understand the 'conflicting' viewpoints. I mean, get this, son. A 2 input XOR does fit to the "exclusive" meaning, but it is also only high when a single input is high. You know, single input...ONE input. Isn't one an odd number? hmmmmm....This is not a subject that is as detrimental in regards to language as you are trying to make it out to be. We could go at length over this, but the reality is, as others have already shown, there are actually real IC's that are multi-input XOR gates. This has been discussed as well, even a cursory Google search literally just did in 30 seconds pulls up discussions and a website going through the arithmetic. https://mindhunter74.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/xor-the-interesting-gate/ https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/93713/how-is-an-xor-with-more-than-2-inputs-supposed-to-work https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/74LVC1G386.pdf Logisim, LogicWorks, actual coding, generally point toward the 'odd-parity' function for a multi-input XOR. You may feel passionate about this topic, but what you are NOT is the definitive authority on the subject. Know your lane and stay in it. I have noticed that the "older generation" on this forum likes to throw shade, but offers no legitimate argumentation in return. "I think, I feel, I believe..." It is such profound sadness that someone with supposedly decades of knowledge and experience ends up bring so very little to the table. I sincerely hope you are retired and do not mentor anyone because you would do them a disservice. If you are not retired, please PM me your details that way if I ever see your resume, I will toss it is the trash. That ends my snippy rant. --- End quote --- :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD Go lie down. |
| hamster_nz:
I don't know who is trying to construct a post-truth XOR, but the "true when only one one input is high, even for more that two inputs" does not pass the Commutativity and Associativity requirements of the actual XOR function. The actual XOR function has only two inputs... it is "one input is high, but not both". As a more practical matter, it would make things like RAID5 and ECC memory pretty useless. For another post-truth fact, if you refine logical true as 'voltage low' and logical false as 'voltage high', an AND gate is actually an OR gate, and a OR gate is actually and AND gate... so all of those things are conflicting, and are only established through convention. Please make sure you point this out to your mentors and coworkers so they can easily identify you as a 'progressive thinker' who needs to be respected. |
| wally2q:
--- Quote from: 16bitanalogue on March 07, 2021, 12:25:01 am ---I pronounce it as 'ZOR' because that is how I learned it from my professor in university and I know how it works. --- End quote --- It's X-OR. It's actually OK to re-align (ie correct) one's thinking from time to time. Failing to do so is considered to be stubbornness... or ignorance. Just because some prof told you something, doesn't mean it's divine gospel. Bill gates once said that nobody ever will need more than 640k of RAM. Your prof was wrong. He also needs to correct himself. I mean what would you say if someone pronounced your call sign as 16bitanaloju-ee. You'd correct them right?... we're doing the same here. cheers! |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |