No single gate compares: the truth...

Thread Starter

rbaulbin

Joined Jan 4, 2011
14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate

Didn't jump out at me, but I only did a cursory search of the article. Mostly they referred to gates as Boolean functions.

Thing is, there are analog parts called comparators. They compare two DC voltages and output a 1 or a 0 depending. They are a single bit A/D converter.

The language is precise for a reason, it is a very deep subject.
It was actually on the "Simple English" Wikipedia I just realized. First paragraph:

"Logic gates compare the state at their inputs (source) to decide what the state at their output should be."
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate
 

Thread Starter

rbaulbin

Joined Jan 4, 2011
14
The magnitude comparator I posted the datasheet for can only do what the humans intended it to do.

There's no rule that the LSB is rightmost, etc. Unless wired to interpret what humans consider "magnitude", then fed numbers in a human format that is machine usable (binary), it cannot compare anything.
So then what do humans consider magnitude? If the mind were to be considered a biological machine (which naturalist science claims it is), how does it ascribe quantity?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
Not really, the scars come from people who can not be wrong, who treat their assertions as gospel, with 5 - 20 people trying to explain why their assertions are wrong. The patience to deal with such arguments completely dissipates. One of the common tricks is the endless rebuttal, every comment needs referred to in quotes, and disputed.

You pointed to a different article than mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gates

The thing is, you kept focusing on your explanations, completely disregarding what anyone else said. Sound like my first paragraph paraphrased?

People kept saying the same things, logic gates are simple, and you were reading way too much into them. 1 and 0 are equal but different, it is how the gates are assembled that makes special functions. If you want to learn you need to listen, not talk, and try to understand what is being said.

I am not going to rehash the old debate, since we already have, what, 5 pages of what is fundamentally the most fundamental subject in digital electronics. If you wish to continue this I am gone. You have several other people (some of whom were retired engineers who are experts by any definition) reach the same state. I am a tech with 30+ years of experience to likes to write, I don't place myself in their rank. I will ignore your posts unless you try confusing some other beginner. If this happens you may be gone soon after, depending on the moderators judgment.

I am willing to speculate, but not on the basics. They are too important, and lay the foundations for future learning.

If you really wish to learn, read, and build, then build some more. Both are necessary. The forum is here to help answer questions about what you didn't understand. This is not about philosophy or creating new theories, but science. All the other folks who are gone had a similar style of arguing, we have threads that go 20 pages, because they had enough knowledge to argue more coherently. At no time did they ever admit they were wrong. Neither have you. Me, I apologize once I see the point, and have done so now and again.
 
Last edited:

beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
My word, the difference between the two links is amazing. The "simple" version looks to be suitable for a disinterested 3rd grader. The difference is similar to a Dick & Jane book and "The Making of the Atomic Bomb". You can learn something from both, but significantly more from the latter.
 

Robin Mitchell

Joined Oct 25, 2009
819
i use simple english sometimes because i have language difficulties, its not because im stupid :p I just find that normal wiki pages use to many complicated words and i get bored when reading a sentece XD
 

Thread Starter

rbaulbin

Joined Jan 4, 2011
14
Not really, the scars come from people who can not be wrong, who treat their assertions as gospel, with 5 - 20 people trying to explain why their assertions are wrong. The patience to deal with such arguments completely dissipates. One of the common tricks is the endless rebuttal, every comment needs referred to in quotes, and disputed.

You pointed to a different article than mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gates

The thing is, you kept focusing on your explanations, completely disregarding what anyone else said. Sound like my first paragraph paraphrased?

People kept saying the same things, logic gates are simple, and you were reading way too much into them. 1 and 0 are equal but different, it is how the gates are assembled that makes special functions. If you want to learn you need to listen, not talk, and try to understand what is being said.

I am not going to rehash the old debate, since we already have, what, 5 pages of what is fundamentally the most fundamental subject in digital electronics. If you wish to continue this I am gone. You have several other people (some of whom were retired engineers who are experts by any definition) reach the same state. I am a tech with 30+ years of experience to likes to write, I don't place myself in their rank. I will ignore your posts unless you try confusing some other beginner. If this happens you may be gone soon after, depending on the moderators judgment.

I am willing to speculate, but not on the basics. They are too important, and lay the foundations for future learning.

If you really wish to learn, read, and build, then build some more. Both are necessary. The forum is here to help answer questions about what you didn't understand. This is not about philosophy or creating new theories, but science. All the other folks who are gone had a similar style of arguing, we have threads that go 20 pages, because they had enough knowledge to argue more coherently. At no time did they ever admit they were wrong. Neither have you. Me, I apologize once I see the point, and have done so now and again.
Bill -

1) I originally posted the Wiki article with link in the other thread. You must have missed it. No biggie. I realized after the fact that it was the "simple English" version -- but that actually shouldn't equate to inaccuracy -- as Mitch pointed out, it uses easier words only. Someone really should edit it.

2) You're taking it way too personally. I obviously conceded to the fact that "compare" is the wrong word. Look at the title of this thread. I'm not trying to judge or question electronic functionality. If you read between the lines, I'm trying to dig into deeper meanings. You can't always "build a circuit" to figure out deeper theories and meanings. I'm trying to iron out paradoxes. Light is a wave. But if it was 1900 and I said it's "not completely true" you might say I was "coming against the science." If I said "F=ma" is not entirely true. You'd do the same. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why everyone will tell me 0 and 1 are EQUAL but DIFFERENT logic states, but also tell me a computer is COUNTING with these things, and that 0 and 1 do NOT represent quantities when a computer is working with them, but at the end of the day 0 and 1 ARE quantities on some level, since they ARE binary numbers. If "we lack basic theories," then these theories are not going to be found in the existing and familiar territories of reason. I'm not trying to "muddy the waters for beginners." This thread has been moved to a different "off topic" section, and that's where it belongs. Those interested in discussing it have continued on it.

J
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
I think part of the problem with equating "logic" with a human level of intelligence is that logic/computer operations are deterministic ways of decision making. The brain seems to me to operate on facts at a quantum level of abstraction where even the smallest bit of information is simply not YES/NO but is like a non-Boolean wave function that when blended with other wave functions grows like a expanding cloud into a 3D mental image of perception from the billions of trillions of possibilities.

I don't think we currently have the technology to express this "mental wave function" using any mathematical system yet or build a device that truly operates on the same level. What we have are systems that emulate the simplest end process of the brain like a coat of paint on a skyscraper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266742
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.4547v2
 

GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
2,192
it's kind of like the word 'mirror'. Technically it can have all kinds of meanings, but simplistically, it satisfies us to look into it for hours. Another consideration is 'who's your audience'. Some consider the linguistics of thier audience, others don't care cause they're still looking in the mirror.
 
Top