Hi guys, first here I'm so seriously and not trolling and this problem is facing me whenever I start solving problem, so by you guys I may improve my skills, cancel that abnormal thinking.

Well, whenever I start solving any problem in software/hardware I always looking at the thing as " A->B or A <--->B ",
(I mean with A <--->B, if B -->A, and if A-->B) and here I'm stuck in, lets take an example for illustrate my gap:
In electronics for example, lets say(assume) there's a "problem(doesn't matter what it's)" which given a transistor and its Mode Of Operation is on Saturation; so while solving my problem and analyzing .. I every time face like this dilemma while solving : (( her's actually my thinking ))
Well, I've in my hand a problem with given transistor in saturation mode, so saturation mean that Vce=0.2v fine? yeah fine, but here is what I'm facing is " Vce=0.2v" <----> "stauration" ? here exactly I'm stuck, how can I figure from the data that given in the question: "given transistor in saturation mode" to conclude if Vce=0.2v --> saturation and vice versa. often it takes me more than two hours to figure out if Vce=0.2v ---> "saturation" and if "saturation" ---->"Vce=0.2v" ! and sometimes I just assume without knowing why ! ... maybe this approach is totally wrong to go with?

 

Have you ever studied formal logic? Did you learn how to do proofs in geometry class? These basics would help you approach applied problems.

It’s a very handy trick in math to make a simplifying assumption, then solve, then go back to check when and if the assumption was correct.

If you had the background classes, you should have learned such things. So a question I have is, what is your background and what are trying to accomplish?

 

Have you ever studied formal logic? Did you learn how to do proofs in geometry class? These basics would help you approach applied problems.

It’s a very handy trick in math to make a simplifying assumption, then solve, then go back to check when and if the assumption was correct.

If you had the background classes, you should have learned such things. So a question I have is, what is your background and what are trying to accomplish?

I studied formal logic but not that much ( like you see in my code I know A-->B what does it stand for, but the problem how to "decide" if A->b or A<->b immediately without proofing.. just by readying the question/given data ..
I haven't studied proofs in geometry class , I just finished high school with good diploma.

if you could handle me any link or pdf to read solo and improve myself then would be fine !

and here isn't about simplification, here about understanding the meaning of .
for example in the question that I stated above, given the transistor on Saturation mode; how could I understand from this that if Vce=0.2v then transistor on satruation?! ofcourse by the definition of saturation, if state is saturation definitely lead to Vce=0.2v .

 

Thinking logically comes with practice. Some call it problem solving. Problem solving is not asking others for answers at every little bump in the road. Try doing it that way.

 

Hi guys, first here I'm so seriously and not trolling and this problem is facing me whenever I start solving problem, so by you guys I may improve my skills, cancel that abnormal thinking.

Well, whenever I start solving any problem in software/hardware I always looking at the thing as " A->B or A <--->B ",
(I mean with A <--->B, if B -->A, and if A-->B) and here I'm stuck in, lets take an example for illustrate my gap:
In electronics for example, lets say(assume) there's a "problem(doesn't matter what it's)" which given a transistor and its Mode Of Operation is on Saturation; so while solving my problem and analyzing .. I every time face like this dilemma while solving : (( her's actually my thinking ))
Well, I've in my hand a problem with given transistor in saturation mode, so saturation mean that Vce=0.2v fine? yeah fine, but here is what I'm facing is " Vce=0.2v" <----> "stauration" ? here exactly I'm stuck, how can I figure from the data that given in the question: "given transistor in saturation mode" to conclude if Vce=0.2v --> saturation and vice versa. often it takes me more than two hours to figure out if Vce=0.2v ---> "saturation" and if "saturation" ---->"Vce=0.2v" ! and sometimes I just assume without knowing why ! ... maybe this approach is totally wrong to go with?

You need to first understand and acknowledge that the very claim that the saturation voltage is 0.2 V is an approximation that makes certain assumptions.

For instance, I can disconnect the base entirely so the transistor will be in cutoff (unless I apply so much voltage that I punch through base junction) and then I can apply 0.2 V across the collector/emitter terminals and I will have Vce = 0.2 V even though the transistor is in cutoff.

So we assume that we are talking about a transistor that is being operated so that it should be "on".

Even then, the voltage will not be exactly 0.2 V and it won't even be constant. Look at a transistor data sheet and you will see how much it can vary. To make matters worse, we usually define "saturation" to be when the beta (Ic/Ib) ratio is 10. For a given application, we might consider it to be in saturation well before then or perhaps not consider this to be yet in saturation.

Leaving all of that aside,

A->B

Means that IF A happens to be true, THEN B must also be true.

If A isn't true, then we are making no assertion regarding whether B is true or not.

A<-->B

means that A is true EXACTLY (i.e., if and only if) B is true.

 

A->B

Means that IF A happens to be true, THEN B must also be true.

If A isn't true, then we are making no assertion regarding whether B is true or not.

A<-->B

means that A is true EXACTLY (i.e., if and only if) B is true.

I appreciate your effort of writing the answer, but I might be not cleared my question of my thread!

I know what's A-->B and what is A<--->B and know everything about them , but if you go back to my description of the problem above(in my thread) I've connected the idea of A-->B and A<-->B with what've told me about saturation but I'm stuck in how can I from telling me that "transistor is on saturation" as to conclude that Stauration <----> Vce=0.7 (approximate) ... you understand my question now?! I'm stuck in determining how can I from the given information about the question(lets assume I gave in my question that transistor is already on saturation) to conclude A<-->B i.e in my case Saturation <-->Vce=0.7 .. ?!

I may not concatenating the subject of A-->B / A<--->B with what I've stated in my problem?!

 

@WBahn
Did you not present an AAC policy with respect to "Homework" here: https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/arbitrary-sequence-counter-up-down.155428/#post-1339991
Let me quote from what I consider seminal insight:

MOD NOTE: Even though this is not homework, per se, the intent is the same -- to learn something as opposed to just get a solution. So I'm moving it to Homework Help where it will receive that kind of attention. Responders can certainly take the assertion that it's not a graded assignment into account.

Why does that not apply to the current TS?

He(?) has posted nothing but a series of poorly presented and ambiguous questions that should be easily answered by any textbook in his native language. Based on context, style, and word choice, I do not believe language is the barrier. What is the TS's native language? Some of us here may be proficient in it, and to pursue that "logic," perhaps he should be allowed to post the same questions in his native language to avoid that impediment, if it exists.

 

@WBahn
To clear more ; here's my doubt/problem:
I told in my question that's "given transistor in saturation mode" ; so what I think/conclude is like this: given transistor in modr saturation is *mean* in other words vce=0.7(approximate)
So I converted that as logic:
A(indicate saturation) ---> B(indicate Vce=0.7)
The **-->** actually illustraded/converted to *mean* !
Is that right approach to think? And can I consider from what I explained here that also this B-->A satisfied? A,B the same indication that I already explained


Thanks

 

Have you asked your professors this question?

 

@WBahn
To clear more ; here's my doubt/problem:
I told in my question that's "given transistor in saturation mode" ; so what I think/conclude is like this: given transistor in modr saturation is *mean* in other words vce=0.7(approximate)
So I converted that as logic:
A(indicate saturation) ---> B(indicate Vce=0.7)

The implication is not true for all transistors; for example, you can purchase BJTs with much lower Vce saturation voltages, e.g., 45 mV. As for expressing saturation as a logic statement, there are many ways to do this because there are many ways to analyze transistors. In all cases, a BJT is in saturation when both the base-emitter and base-collector junctions are forward-biased. But if you want to express this in terms of transistor parameters, then, in this case, I think the simplest is to think of the BJT as a current-controlled current amplifier, where the base current Ib controls the collector current Ic, scaled by the transistor's gain β:

Ic = βIb​

Under normal operation (active region), an increase in Ib will cause a corresponding increase in Ic. Saturation literally means that increasing Ib will not increase Ic -- the collector current is as high as it can go; it is saturated. Thus, a reasonable logic statement about BJT saturation would be:

(increase in Ib ≠ increase in Ic) (transistor saturated)​

provided that Ib and Ic are greater than 0, i.e., the transistor is not simply off.