Jump to content

Talk:Canonical normal form

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gregie156 (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 13 June 2007 (sop/pos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A terrible description of canonical form. Do some research and figure out what canonical form really is please.

sum of products

If both "sum of products" and "product of sums" redirects here, this page should have some discussion at *least* about the terms. Fresheneesz 07:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article again, closer. Dysprosia 07:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read closer. I saw each term mentioned once. No explanation about what either of them mean. Fresheneesz 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"sum of products" (minterms OR'd in series).
"product of sums" (maxterms AND'd in series).
I would think that would be a sufficient explanation of a synonym used. There is a lot of explanation of the concepts elsewhere in the article. I don't know what you're expecting to be present in the article. Dysprosia 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd probably help to put them in the head. SoP and PoS seem to be pretty commonly used. - mako 09:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, its fine now. I just expected that you wouldn't have to scour the article to find something about a term that links to the page. Fresheneesz 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped greatly if you would have said words to that effect. Dysprosia 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

specific definition of minterm number

I've been taught that theres a standard way to number minterms, and I was wondering if everyone numbers minterms the same way - and if so, then how exactly is it determined. I know one format we use for four variables, but it may not be the only way. Does anyone know about this? Fresheneesz 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For computer logic design, in my experience, numbering goes like the "indexing minterms" section says. It's a logical definition IMO. - mako 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sop/pos

i'v replaced ...a Boolean function that is composed of standard logical operators... with ...any boolean function... since any boolean function can be expressed as pos/sop.

i'v also added a section about non cannonical sop.pos forms. since they both refer here i feel it is important to have a section about them.

Gregie156 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canonical_normal_form&oldid=137926079"