81:
71:
53:
278:
referred to above, almost 2.5 y ago, the audio article was so much clearer and more useful to me than the algebraic table, symbols, operations, and all those other wonderful mathematical representations! Please do not misconstrue my 'meaning', which is just what this message is about. I found it much easier to assimilate the rest of the article, including the algebra, after having listened to the audio file on disjunction that clarified the 'meaning' with 'real world' examples that most of us can identify with.
142:
22:
364:
452:) would be helpful both to make sure the merge wasn't a step backwards and to make whatever improvements those audiences might benefit from. For example are there clear boundaries between parts that could usefully be spun off as separate articles serving different audiences, or are the different audiences served by the article happy to browse around to find the bits most relevant to them? --
191:
rest of this talk page deals with the first replacement---since it all refers to a now historic article it may as well be archived appropriately in its entirety. Since I'm likely to break something attempting that, would someone good at archiving who agrees with this please do the honors? Thanks. --
710:
It would be good if we could a new chapter, where all boolean operations are described in a more tidy way than in part 2.3. Like with one sub-chapter for each existing operation with a paragraph explaining it, a truth table, and the symbolic notations as well as the short mnemonic used in programming
656:
This is not an easy question; I guess you need to provide much more information if you want help, and even then you need to be lucky that someone had the same problem and (consciously!) solved it. E.g. on my computer (under
Windows) I have installed lots of fonts, and Firefox displays every Knowledge
727:
article links here when talking about boolean operations on paths. The idea is for example that, given paths p and q, containing the (sets of) points P and Q respectively, "p OR q" is defined as r such that (its set of points) "R = P UNION Q". While this may seem intuitive to us, the article doesn't
312:
This topic is very confusing and hard to follow. For example, "More generally
Boolean algebra is the algebra of values from any Boolean algebra as a model of the laws of Boolean algebra." I don't think you are supposed to use the same words to explain the previous words. I know I am generalizing,
277:
First, as the content of this article may very well serve the public understanding of and bridge between logic and mathematics, it is certainly top priority! Next, when I cross-referred to the page on logical 'disjunction', I met somewhat of a startling revelation that I believe user 148.122.181.240
339:
I know that
Knowledge is not supposed to be used as a textbook, but a section with examples in of some boolean expressions would be really helpful. Seeing examples (simple ones as well as complex ones), would give the user a deeper understanding of the concepts and an easier grasps on the formulas.
190:
The second replacement has now happened and seems to have generated no controversy after two months, except for the "brick wall of text" remark below, with which I fully agree and may try to do something about at some point by breaking up paragraphs and supplying lots of diagrams and pictures. The
462:
You might have tried contacting me on my talk page. This merge completely destroyed the original intent of creating an article about
Boolean Logic, as taught in middle and high school, and used extensively in computer science and electronics. This article was meant to be accessible to a general
687:
When reporting this behavior, please specify the operating system (Windows 7, Mac OS X 10.6.4, Fedora 12, Ubuntu 10.04, Debian 5.0.5, whatever) and browser (IE8, Firefox 3.6.3, Chrome 5.0.375.70, Opera 10.60, whatever) you're using. This will be very helpful in diagnosing the problem.
728:
mention this and I think that maybe it isn't very informative for people coming here from the
Inkscape article. I'm also unsure whether such a thing should be included here, or perhaps on one of the articles on set theory or perhaps in its own article. Your thoughts?
511:, 16 January 2010) This is in fact not the case. What you have stated as the reasoning behind interpretability is actually a clear example of the introduction of the universal quantifier. Boolean logic should have a separate page that serves as an easier read.
544:
in depth for those who've mastered the introduction. Those complaining about impenetrability should not have been led to this article as the first one to read on the subject. I'll redo the merge that was undone in 2007 but this time redirect
595:
are the sections on derivations and soundness/completeness, and perhaps some of the material on the ring basis and related topics. Suggestions for how to continue and organize this cutting-back process for this article solicited.
480:
The reason you believe your article is understandable by anyone is because you wrote it. This is a common error in exposition and leads to articles that are understandable by only one person. Your article currently violates
447:
The promised merge has happened. Feedback from "those who use
Boolean applications in electronics and computers, and those taking classes in Boolean logic in school" (the target audience of the old version as per
821:
The catch is that the numeric counterpart of
Boolean negation ¬x is not numerical negation −x but the operation 1−x. Numerical negation doesn't satisfy De Morgan's laws, for example. --
591:
where they have combined to form its applications section at the end. There is still much overlap between these two articles. The main items in this article not covered by
522:
797:
758:
324:
641:
For whatever reason, many of the symbols used to describe formulae are showing as a square. Does anyone know what language pack is needed to display them properly?
404:
251:
231:
657:
page correctly, but for some reason
Internet Explorer has trouble with many. But on this article even my Internet Explorer displays everything just fine. --
570:
526:
778:
658:
271:
789:
From the article: "Two
Boolean laws having no numeric counterpart are the laws characterizing logical negation, namely x ∧ ¬x = 0 and x ∨ ¬x = 1."
313:
but after reading this page several times, I am more confused than when I started. My suggestion would be to simplify the language dramatically.
697:
630:
306:
282:
830:
816:
502:
475:
218:
262:
The suggestion to collect the laws in one place seemed reasonable so I did that just now. Is the article still completely unreadable now? --
374:
666:
873:
712:
682:
610:
398:
2. Ensure that this is the superior article in content, too. 3. Replace the inferior article with a redirection to the superior article.
195:
801:
878:
507:"The reason you believe your article is understandable by anyone is because you wrote it. This is a common error in exposition..." (
234:
406:
328:
605:
255:
206:
158:
103:
456:
518:
437:
424:
467:. We now have two PhD-only articles and nothing aimed at anyone else. I will recreate the original article under the name
290:
673:
You probably just need to choose a default browser font that has better
Unicode support. Math symbols are not a language.
762:
793:
754:
320:
859:
650:
240:
I agree, it is completely unreadable. The section on Laws should be displayed as a list, not a series of paragraphs.
622:
247:
185:
94:
58:
430:
784:
737:
532:
I just realized what the problem is. Boolean algebra is currently organized as an introductory article, namely
592:
588:
554:
550:
533:
844:
417:
490:
33:
541:
838:
411:
370:
224:
582:
102:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
826:
774:
693:
601:
566:
537:
498:
302:
267:
636:
442:
354:
345:
21:
626:
39:
230:
This article is a brick-wall of text, would be nice to see some more air and use of figures
750:
662:
618:
514:
316:
243:
587:
I've moved the two applications subsections (under respectively Values and Operations) to
363:
340:
Though there are a few examples here and there, a dedicated section would be very useful.
8:
705:
463:
audience, but has now been changed back into a PhD-only article, much like the original
822:
770:
742:
733:
689:
678:
597:
562:
558:
508:
494:
453:
298:
286:
263:
192:
86:
341:
80:
812:
646:
214:
174:
392:
1. Pick whichever article has the better name. In this case, I would say it's the
464:
401:(The redirection might work if you simply insert it, but I've never tried that).
70:
52:
486:
434:
421:
170:
867:
854:
729:
718:
674:
546:
482:
468:
202:
141:
808:
642:
472:
449:
388:
Perhaps someone didn't understand how to do a merjer. Here's the process:
210:
99:
176:
850:
724:
172:
747:
Lots of the symbols don't work and are just throwing up squares.
177:
843:
There is a merge proposal regarding this page. Please see
334:
297:
What audio article? On Knowledge or somewhere else? --
281:
So, where is the audio file on Boolean algebra (logic)?
792:
How about x + -x = 0 and x * x^-1 = 1, respectively?
553:, including moving the merge tag on this article to
135:
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
76:
420:(my proposal there affects this article also). --
865:
431:talk:Boolean algebra#naming -- trying again
711:language (AND, NAND, XOR, ...). Thanks. --
536:, followed by separate articles treating
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
845:Talk:Boolean_algebra#Merge_October_2012
201:I have archived the old content on the
866:
769:See "Language pack" section above. --
491:Talk:Boolean logic#Problematic_article
418:talk:Boolean algebra#Revisiting naming
207:Talk:Boolean algebra (logic)/Archive 1
92:This redirect is within the scope of
19:
615:for easier reading and navigation.
358:
15:
874:Redirect-Class mathematics articles
611:Please, make formulas stand out ...
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
847:and comment there. Thanks, — Carl
373:on 8 December 2005. The result of
14:
890:
395:article specifying "elementary".
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
879:NA-priority mathematics articles
362:
140:
115:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
79:
69:
51:
20:
561:for the relevant discussion. --
369:This article was nominated for
593:Boolean algebra (introduction)
589:Boolean algebra (introduction)
555:Boolean algebra (introduction)
551:Boolean algebra (introduction)
534:Boolean algebra (introduction)
476:21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
196:21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
763:17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
715:Friday, 2008-11-14 16:42 UTC
256:03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
106:and see a list of open tasks.
606:06:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
503:10:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
291:07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
272:10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
219:00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
7:
860:11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
738:05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
542:Boolean algebra (structure)
235:02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
10:
895:
817:16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
802:16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
631:17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
329:00:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
457:06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
438:08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
425:23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
407:03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
186:Article has been replaced
64:
46:
831:18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
779:18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
698:18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
571:17:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
307:18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
205:talk archive page here:
785:Analogy with arithmetic
706:Article can be improved
683:20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
667:16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
651:15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
538:Boolean algebra (logic)
527:04:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
95:WikiProject Mathematics
118:mathematics articles
807:Sounds good to me.
839:Merge October 2012
559:Talk:Boolean_logic
87:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
858:
753:comment added by
633:
621:comment added by
517:comment added by
412:Revisiting naming
385:
384:
319:comment added by
246:comment added by
225:Suggested changes
183:
182:
164:
163:
134:
133:
130:
129:
126:
125:
886:
848:
765:
616:
583:Moving stuff out
529:
366:
359:
331:
258:
178:
155:
154:
144:
136:
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
16:
894:
893:
889:
888:
887:
885:
884:
883:
864:
863:
841:
787:
748:
745:
721:
708:
639:
613:
585:
519:174.102.119.170
512:
465:Boolean algebra
445:
429:Now please see
414:
402:
396:
357:
337:
314:
241:
232:148.122.181.240
227:
188:
179:
173:
149:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
12:
11:
5:
892:
882:
881:
876:
840:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
786:
783:
782:
781:
744:
741:
720:
717:
707:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
670:
669:
638:
637:Language Pack?
635:
612:
609:
584:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
444:
443:Merge complete
441:
413:
410:
400:
394:
390:
389:
383:
382:
375:the discussion
367:
356:
355:AfD discussion
353:
351:
336:
333:
310:
309:
275:
274:
238:
237:
226:
223:
222:
221:
187:
184:
181:
180:
175:
171:
169:
166:
165:
162:
161:
151:
150:
145:
139:
132:
131:
128:
127:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
891:
880:
877:
875:
872:
871:
869:
862:
861:
856:
852:
846:
832:
828:
824:
823:Vaughan Pratt
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
794:84.209.121.30
790:
780:
776:
772:
771:Vaughan Pratt
768:
767:
766:
764:
760:
756:
755:137.222.31.40
752:
740:
739:
735:
731:
726:
716:
714:
699:
695:
691:
690:Vaughan Pratt
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
668:
664:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
634:
632:
628:
624:
620:
608:
607:
603:
599:
598:Vaughan Pratt
594:
590:
572:
568:
564:
563:Vaughan Pratt
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:Boolean logic
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
528:
524:
520:
516:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
495:Vaughan Pratt
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
469:Boolean logic
466:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
454:Vaughan Pratt
451:
440:
439:
436:
432:
427:
426:
423:
419:
409:
408:
405:
399:
393:
387:
386:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
361:
360:
352:
349:
347:
343:
332:
330:
326:
322:
321:76.126.151.47
318:
308:
304:
300:
299:Vaughan Pratt
296:
295:
294:
292:
288:
284:
279:
273:
269:
265:
264:Vaughan Pratt
261:
260:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
236:
233:
229:
228:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:Boolean logic
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
193:Vaughan Pratt
168:
167:
160:
157:
156:
153:
152:
148:
143:
138:
137:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
23:
18:
17:
842:
791:
788:
746:
722:
709:
640:
614:
586:
446:
428:
415:
403:
397:
391:
378:
350:
338:
311:
280:
276:
239:
189:
146:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
749:—Preceding
623:206.3.139.2
617:—Preceding
513:—Preceding
485:as well as
450:User:StuRat
416:Please see
379:speedy keep
315:—Preceding
248:76.65.22.64
242:—Preceding
109:Mathematics
100:mathematics
59:Mathematics
868:Categories
743:No Symbols
659:Hans Adler
435:Trovatore
422:Trovatore
293:kdarwish
159:Archive 1
751:unsigned
725:Inkscape
675:Dicklyon
619:unsigned
515:unsigned
371:deletion
342:Ali Khan
335:Examples
317:unsigned
283:Kdarwish
244:unsigned
147:Archives
30:redirect
730:Shinobu
557:. See
487:WP:FORK
809:StuRat
643:Oorang
489:, see
483:WP:OWN
473:StuRat
211:StuRat
36:scale.
719:Paths
713:Nuxly
509:Pratt
28:This
855:talk
827:talk
813:talk
798:talk
775:talk
759:talk
734:talk
723:The
694:talk
679:talk
663:talk
647:talk
627:talk
602:talk
567:talk
540:and
523:talk
499:talk
493:. --
433:. --
377:was
346:talk
325:talk
303:talk
287:talk
268:talk
252:talk
215:talk
851:CBM
549:to
870::
853:·
829:)
815:)
800:)
777:)
761:)
736:)
696:)
688:--
681:)
665:)
649:)
629:)
604:)
596:--
569:)
525:)
501:)
471:.
348:)
327:)
305:)
289:)
270:)
254:)
217:)
209:.
857:)
849:(
825:(
811:(
796:(
773:(
757:(
732:(
692:(
677:(
661:(
645:(
625:(
600:(
565:(
521:(
497:(
381:.
344:(
323:(
301:(
285:(
266:(
250:(
213:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
