# Talk:Inverter (logic gate)

## Using NAND Gate as alternative

You could use a NAND gate for a NOT gate.

```    |--|```\   f
A--|  |    |o--
|--|___/
```

Correct? I know all the other gates have alternative setups using NAND gates, maybe this should, too. I dunno, I'll leave this to someone else here so I don't screw something up.

160.125.253.9 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) -jr2

This way you can also use a NOR gate. BTW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.161.94 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________

I do not think these articles should be merged. There's a slight distinction in terms of the type of analysis. The Inverter CIRCUIT is distinct from the gate in that it is "imperfect" - that is, analog effects must be considered.

I will upload analog and digital Voltage Curves to provide further analysis.

The Digital Inverter Circuit is the crucial dividing line between the Digital and Analog realms of circuit analysis. The behavior of the circuit and tolerance to noise, signal levels, and device characteristics are what we define as "digital" - thus, it deserves treatment beyond its capacity as a mere "1/0" logic gate. ~nimur

I dont disagree, but to me 'logic gate' suggests a device, physical (imperfect) or theoretical (perfect) that implements a logical operator. Is there somewhere which explains clearly where the line should be drawn? Logic gate talks about gates as physical circuits, but you seem to be saying that t should be used purely to define the logical rules that are implemented.
The reason I suggested the merge was actually because I thought the NOT-implementation circuit didn't really belong in an article together with analog DC-AC inverters, as they are two different things, and this seemed the obvious place for it. StealthFox 11:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I guess we're in agreement about the perfect/imperfect question. The real issue at hand is now, When someone speaks of an inverter , do they typically refer to an AC/DC converter, or to a logic gate circuit? I suppose a merge of the digital material into the Logic Gate article is alright, as long as we keep a clear reference / link at the top of Inverter (Electrical) article. I don't think a disambiguation page is needed, though.-User:nimur, 23 December 2005 ~21:47 UTC.
A quick unscientific google shows that the AC/DC usage appears to be more common, and is what I personally would think of when I hear "electrical inverter" (as oppose to electronic or logical). I'd also certainly be interested in the material that is in Inverter (Electrical) if I was looking for "NOT gate" (which is how I came here). It is probably worth adding some explanation of the perfect/imperfect issue if the material is merged, as I had not thought of it until you mentioned it, although this would probably be better suited to the article on logic gates in general.
If there arent any objections in the next couple of days I will merge and add an appopriate note at the top of Inverter (electrical). StealthFox 01:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
That should be fine. I'll proofread after the fact. Thanks for feedback. nimur

Hmmm... a few years later... Anyway, at present Inverter (logic gate) and NOT gate contain much of the same material (though with different schematics), and I think a merge would be good, with a note about the (im)perfect issue if necessary.

(I hope this is what you were talking about.) Tadpole9(talk • contribs) 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Hmmm... a few years later... Anyway, at present Inverter (logic gate) and NOT gate contain much of the same material (though with different schematics), and I think a merge would be good, with a note about the (im)perfect issue if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.242.10 (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

## How can inverters work?

How is it possible to get a 1 from a 0? (or High from Low?) What does it decrease to increase something else? Could it be used as a voltage (or current) limiter? Kamocat 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The inverter has a connection to an external power source (two terminals, +5V and 0V for example). Depending on the input, the inverter will switch the output between being connected to the 0V and being connected to the +5V (loosely speaking). Zener diodes are a way to limit voltage, there might be others. 60.51.30.43 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

## Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move. The current title, "Inverter (logic gate)", is precise with the qualifier. NOT gate redirects here, so there's no navigational aid rendered by the move. This isn't the primary topic of "Inverter", so that wouldn't be affected either. I can reconfigure the alternate proposal below as a new move request if desired. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Inverter (logic gate)NOT gate – consistency with related AND gate, OR gate, NOR gate, and XOR gate. Note also Negated AND gate, for thoroughness. I would also proffer WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: use names that are precise (inverter has multiple meanings); and particularly WP:PRECISION and WP:PRIMARY, considering distinction from inverter (electrical), which is viewed more than 6 times as often. I should note that I previously requested a move at inverter (electrical) (currently outstanding), and page view stats are in that discussion. Another guideline to consider is WP:COMMONAME, and I believe both "NOT gate" and "inverter" are used in WP:RSs. Google hits, for what they're worth, I found as follows:
"not gate" logic: About 713,000 results
inverter "logic gate": About 1,630,000 results
"logic gate" inverter: About 316,000 results
inverter "logic gate" -not: About 760,000 results
"not gate" "logic gate": About 38,300 results

I'm not sure how to interpret these, given for example how adding terms sometimes increased the result count instead of narrowing it, nor whether Google hits are decisive here, but there they are, for thoroughness. Note also, for what it's worth, discussion above on merge of inverter (logic gate) and NOT gate, effected 16 September 2008. ENeville (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – in all my years in electronics, I can't say I was ever in a situation where people would say or write "NOT gate" in preference to "inverter", even though that would have been understood to be an alternative term for it. Let's stick with what it's commonly called. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Book evidencethis book search suggests that "the NOT gate is more commonly called an inverter". Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support alternate proposal below - I don't like the awkward parens construction of the current title, which implies that there is a dominant use of the word inverter (not this one) and that use of the term with respect to logic gates is a minor use of the term. There is no dominant meaning of the word, which is a plain English word that can have meanings beyond electricity and electronics. So disambiguation should be part of the article title. I would equally support logic inverter as well as NOT gate. In addition to Google and published sources, I look to Wikipedia itself for guidance. Toss a coin: 29 articles link to NOT gate and 29 articles link to inverter (logic gate). So either logic inverter or NOT gate works for me. --Wbm1058 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That article also notes that "In electronics a NOT gate is more commonly called an inverter." That's probably true beyond electronics, too. The "NOT" form is typically used when, as in that article, a parallel list of types is desired. Outside such lists, it's called an inverter.
Just noticed there is something called a Controlled NOT gate. That article does not use the word inverter at all, and Wikipedia as yet has no link for controlled inverter. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There are at least hundreds of books that explain that an XOR gate is a controlled inverter, or is sometimes called a controlled inverter, or can be used as a controlled inverter, so you wouldn't expect a separate article on that. Except the quantum gate you found, where only one input/output is a qbit and the other is control, and it's not really a logic gate at all. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"an XOR gate is a controlled inverter" – but the XOR gate article never uses the word inverter, or the term controlled inverter... maybe that should be fixed. -Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Continuing the pattern established by AND gate, OR gate, NOR gate, etc. would seem to call for INVERTER gate as the alternative, as one textbook uses. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
ISBN 0-13-250531-2, on p. 29 calls it "The INVERT function", or, an inverting gate. OK, I could accept INVERT gate, but that would require more modification to existing articles to conform. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
After struggling with attempts to find a good natural disambiguation for inverter in this context, I was finally struck by what surely is the most elegant solution. See:#Alternate proposalWbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In the Boolean, this gate is given as a "NOT." So that's the "logical" name. As for the electronics, Electrical Engineering by Maxfield and Bird uses the proposed form. The inverter (electrical) article gets over seven times the traffic of this article. So this subject is apparently not the one that comes mind first for most readers when they hear the word "inverter". Kauffner (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
But for those familiar with the topic, inverter is much more recognizable, whether that's logical or not. Most books that teach this stuff introduce the term "NOT gate" once, and then always refer to it as an inverter. It has been that way at least since TI started selling the 7404 "hex inverter" IC over 40 years ago; their catalogs pretty much drove the terminology in the field, to the extent that it hadn't settled yet. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but we have other factors here: consistency, and the need for disambiguation. Powers T 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it's already well disambiguated, and the consistency you're seeking here is inappropriate, per usage is high-quality sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The need for disambiguation, and the desire for consistency with related articles, both point toward using a slightly less-common but equally well understood name for this construct. Powers T 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's so much less commonly used, and probably not equally well understood. There are text that teach this stuff that never mention the term NOT gate or anything it. Ie.g. this one from Cambridge University Press. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree; no computer engineer worth his salt would fail to recognize the term "NOT gate". But more importantly, we also have to consider the layman, who, if they're familiar at all with logic gates, probably knows them as AND, OR, and NOT. Powers T 18:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—I cannot for a moment imagine why the current name isn't superior to all of the proffered alternatives for the searching reader (as opposed to the knowing editor). Tony (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Because a reader who already knows we have AND gate and OR gate is likely to look for NOT gate? Powers T 18:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm guessing you have zero experience in this area, yes? I'd say a typical reader who knows we have AND gate and OR gate would know to look for Inverter. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• No, my experience is just in a different area than yours. You're apparently coming at this from a hardware point of view, based on your references to electrical engineering and hardware manufacturer websites. I come at it from a logical point of view, more high-level and abstract. I've known these things as NOT gates since fourth grade, and that never changed in my subsequent years of schooling. Powers T 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• What does one do with abstract gates? I thought a gate was hardware, "physical device implementing a Boolean function", or "a computer circuit with several inputs but only one output that can be activated by particular combinations of inputs" (this is one reason "NOT gate" is not preferred), or "an elementary building block of a digital circuit", or "collection of transistors and resistors that implement Boolean logic operations in a circuit", or "a physical device, typically electronic, which computes a Boolean logical output (0 or 1) from Boolean input or inputs", etc. Of course, one also works with abstractions of gates, but I don't think the term "gate" is much used in general Boolean logic that's not aimed at hardware. I understand the "NOT" Boolean function, but where did you learn and use "NOT gate"? Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• I told you, in school. I'm a computer scientist. I picked up an IC maybe five times in college, but we spent a lot of time talking about AND, OR, and NOT gates -- not as physical structures (which as you know are actually often made up of NOR and NAND gates in reality) but as logical operators. Powers T 17:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Here is a good example of practice. This vendor advertises on google with the term "NOT gate", but their product page only includes "inverter". Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting. "Inverter with Schmitt Trigger"—Schmitt trigger has a link to digital inverter in an image description, but inverter (logic gate) has no reference or link to Schmitt trigger. Why not? And you can still buy a single logic gate on a single chip, when the typical modern memory or processor chip has how many millions of these logic gates on a single chip? Oh, I see. Schmitt trigger#Inverting Schmitt trigger. is "Inverting Schmitt trigger" another way of saying "Inverter with Schmitt Trigger"? The "Implementations" section of logic gate could be enhanced to give examples of practical applications of these single-logic-gate-on-a-chips. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• For \$0.79, you can get 6 inverters in one IC, compatible with what you could get 45 years ago, and from the same manufacturer. As the for Schmidt trigger, the terminology there is confusing and inconsistent, as the article explains. No, inverting Schmidt trigger is not necessarily a Schmidt trigger with inverter – but it could be. Why someone chose "digital" to establish the context for "inverter" there is not obvious; perhaps to contrast with the article topic, which is an analog circuit. As you can see at Amazon, "digital inverter" is as likely to mean a Power inverter. Everything is "digital" these days if it has a chip in it, no? Also note that while Amazon lists it as a "Portable Digital Inverter", the product label says "Digital Power Inverter", because they want potential customers to recognize what it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above – it's definitely the more common and logical name, irrespective of what the 'experts' might want to name it. Consistency may be well and good, but the proposed name would seem to astonish the user. Please don't put consistency ahead of clarity of purpose for the reader. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In popular usage, an "inverter" means a power inverter. The usage found in the title of this article is confined to people who know that V equals IR, what an n-p-n junction is for, and who don't look for holes in the ground, but in properly doped semi-conductors. The idea of this RM is to move this subject to a name that would resolve the type of confusion that is evident above. Kauffner (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Moving it to a more obscure term doesn't solve any problems, and it's not the idea of this RM, which was only done to get it out of the way to try to make a primary claim for Power inverter. Everyone familiar with the topic knows it as "inverter"; some also know that "NOT gate" is an alternative term for it. Why are you suggesting that we punt on recognizability here? Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You've got it totally backwards. If anything, "anyone familiar with the topic" knows what a "NOT gate" is, while laymen are unlikely to recognize an "inverter". Powers T 17:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Or a layman assumes that an "inverter" is the DC-to-AC conversion device, as Ohconfucius did above. Kauffner (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
What Kauffner is calling a "power inverter" is what I would call a "converter", since it doesn't reverse or "invert" the output at all, but converts if from DC to AC; that is, you're changing between a sine wave (that fluctuates) and a flat negative or positive output. Neotarf (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the classroom it can be a "not gate" if you're discussing theory, but very quickly becomes an "inverter" when you talk about the function and about the physical device.
In the lab, whether R&D, manufacturing, or power supply engineering, or even in a field service office, you are talking about the physical device pictured in the article: it is an "inverter". In addition, what they don't show in the article is that you can draw a bubble on the output of a gate, and you have just drawn an "inverter". An AND gate with an inverter on the output becomes a NAND gate. An OR gate with a bubble on the output becomes a NOR gate. And a lot of gate schematics are drawn with both a regular and inverted (opposite from the truth table) output, again using a small bubble on the lower output pin for the inverted version of the output. Most gates have more than one input, and the output is "gated" by the combination of inputs. I have a hard time thinking of an inverter as a gate at all, although I suppose technically it is, because of the single input, and because you don't have to draw it as a gate, just tack it on the output of a gate as a bubble. Neotarf (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've taught circuit theory for years, and inverter is the term used in all the texts commonly used for courses at all levels on circuits. Among these are Sedra & Smith, Neaman, Rashid, Baker... Many of these texts do not show up in a Google-books search because they have no Google "preview" and so only the title is searchable. Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inverter is common (the TTL 7404 is a hex inverter rather than a hex not gate) and makes more sense. NOT gate puts the function into an AND, OR, XOR gate parallel naming scheme, but a single input function confuses the meaning of "gate". Glrx (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Buying individual gates from a catalog strikes me as charmingly old-fashioned in this IC era. Here is what some textbooks have to say:
I extended some of your quotes to make it more clear how they represent inverter. Yes, many such sources exist. But a children's book that doesn't mention inverter, and uses other substardard terminology like putting gates "in series" is pretty unusual. The Quantum Computing book is talk about something that is not an inverter, because it's a quantum gate, not a logic gate (read the description); so we don't really care what they call it. The rest mention both terms. I pointed out a book or two with discussions of logic gates that only use inverter. Are there any that only use NOT gate, besides the children's book? This search and this should clarify what is more commonly called what. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
For books with inverter (on a page with "NOR gate" and "NAND gate), but without NOT gate (as far as I can tell with a quick search) try these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and I get tired of looking. In more typical books, "NOT gate" is used once or twice, and "inverter" throughout. Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"Inverter" may be somewhat more common. But this subject is not primary for "inverter." No one else is calling it Inverter (logic gate), that's for sure. Kauffner (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; it's called an inverter, which is not primary, so it's disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
IMHO it should be primary. I suspect more people don't google it because they already know what it is. ON the other hand why would a device that converts between AC and DC be called an "inverter" if it does not "invert" or reverse the input. Without checking n-grams, I would hazard a guess that "power inverter" is a less common usage from some industry that does not require a background knowledge of physics. Neotarf (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Opinions just confuse the issue. The Power inverter has been called an inverter for a hundred years or so, because it periodically inverts the connections of the output (AC power) to the input (battery terminals); they've gotten more sophicated, to where the name is less descriptive of what they do, but that's what they're called. We have to live with that. See this 1902 dictionary in which German Umsteuerungsapparat (rerouting apparatus) is associated with English current-inverter and French inverseur. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

### No doubt

Book sources leave no doubt what it's more commonly called. I wouldn't put much stock in any web junk that turns up below. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

From one of those sources: "In electronics a NOT gate is more commonly called an inverter." "In electronics". That book is about computer science, so it makes that note and then continues on calling it a NOT gate throughout the rest of the book. Your background in electronics is coloring your perception of which term is dominant. Powers T 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That CS book only mentions gates in the context of circuits, so I wouldn't infer that they're much called anything different in another field. I looked at some others with "computer science" in the title, and there's no consistency; one even calls it a "NEGATION gate". I guess they feel free to call it whatever they like if they're not familiar with where it's used (in electroncis, mostly). Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, so the sources all support you, and any that don't must be unfamiliar with electronics. Nice little tautology you have there. I say again: your experience with electronics is coloring your perception of what term is more common. There are other domains of knowledge involved here and you have refused to acknowledge them as pertinent. Powers T 22:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The engineers might call it an inverter, but this name confuses other readers. "NOT gate" is far more self-explanatory. No one is proposing "inverter" as a title anyway. Here is WP:PRECISION: "If it exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title." Kauffner (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the first time anyone has mentioned potential confusion. Is there a basis for your expectation of confusion? And what title guidelines does this relate to? Recognizability? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
What is this class of "other readers" that are confused? The reader searching inverter ends up at Power inverter a ridiculous result as this is a minor usage and unlikely to be what is sought. Instead they should end up at Inverter (disambiguation) or Inverter (logic gate). Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I poked around; the redirect issue is more significant. On April 15, JHunterJ closed this requested move] with an eye toward the discussion on this page. We should consider how to handle Inverter. Glrx (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

### References for usage in sources

(edit conflict)The following sections are created for anyone to add examples from sources. But from initial web and books googling, it looks like the most common usage is "NOT gates" with a caveat that they're also called inverters. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

#### NOT gate

Where "NOT gate" is used, but "inverter" is not.

#### Inverter

Where "Inverter" is used, but "NOT gate" is not.

Sedra/Smith, the classic textbook, calls it a "digital logic inverter". Kauffner (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

#### Both

Where both terms are used.

• "The NOT gate performs the basic logical function called inversion or complementation. NOT gate is also called inverter. " [8]
• "A logical inverter , sometimes called a NOT gate to differentiate it from other types of electronic inverter devices..." [9]
note that it basically says that "NOT gate" is used to differentiate it from other uses of "inverter", which is basically what we need to do.
• "NOT Gates (Inverters)" [10]
• (see p. 34 - Not Gates - "NOT gates are also called inverters" [11]
• Behzad Razavi, (p. 787) another textbook heavyweight, uses both. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

## Requested move

### Alternate proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move. (Note that the WP:NCDAB option 1 applies to selecting the title of the article, not the parenthetical qualifier of the title.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Inverter (logic gate)Inverter (NOT gate)NOT gate provides more specific parenthetical disambiguation than logic gate. These terms are by far the primary terms for this article, and the extensive discussion above demonstrates the difficulty of picking one over the other as the single primary term for this topic. This solution keeps both terms in the article title. Per WP:RETAIN, Inverter should remain the primary search term, as it has a long established history in that position, and indeed NOT gate was moved here, rather than the reverse. — Opening this alternate proposal as its own RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an acceptable disambiguation to me, though it's unusual in WP to disambiguate via alt names. It's not clear what problem you're trying to solve by this move though. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation of inverter, with two primary or near-primary topics, is unusual all around. I think giving the nod to power inverter is fair, though it's a closer than "usual" call.
By putting NOT gate in the title, in parens, NOT gate appears on the Category:Logic gates page, along with the other types of gates. "(logic gate)" on the categorization page isn't helpful, because the category is already Category:Logic gates. NOT gate disambiguates logic gate. -Wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Try to say "not gate" three times really fast and you'll find out why people don't say it. :) Neotarf (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Tried it but I still have no idea. Powers T 15:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The restriction "logic gate" is clear to all readers. The restriction "NOT gate" is clear to many (certainly those already familiar with Boolean gates), but it may be confusing or jarring to others. WP doesn't normally capitalize terms let alone all-cap them. Consequently, NOT might be taken for an acronym regarding some type of door/gate. Or it might be an emphatic reference to the inverter that is NOT the logic gate. The better term is logic gate. Glrx (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't the confused reader also think that AND gate, OR gate, NAND gate, XNOR gate (all "not normally all-capped" terms)—and, indeed logic gate—were types of gates as well? Note the topic for the primary use of gate. By extension, the confused reader will think that this type of inverter, distinguished from the power inverter, is also a type of gate called a "logic gate". Maybe the Wizard will open the gate for you only if you use the correct logic to convince him to open the gate. As for the emphatic reference, it's grammatically incorrect. Correct grammar would be Inverter (NOT a gate), which would more precisely mean "Inverter (NOT a gate)", not "Inverter (NOT a logic gate)". – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Additional comments in support by proposer – The closest specific guideline addressing this issue that I can find is WP:NCDAB. Option 1 states: "When there is another term or more complete name... that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used". NOT gate is unambiguous, and arguably is not simply equally clear, but more clear. NOT gate can stand alone without disambiguation, unlike inverter. It is an ideal disambiguating word or phrase in parentheses. NOT gate is the single member of the generic class "(logic gate)", as no other member of that class requires disambiguating. A far cry from the generic class "(album)", for example. The specific subject or context to which the topic inverter applies is indeed NOT gate. The current generic class "(logic gate)" article actually links NOT, mentions NOT before inverter, and does not link inverter (logic gate). When it first mentions inverter, it doesn't define it: "The four functions denoted by arrows are the logical implication functions. These functions are not usually implemented as elementary circuits, but rather as combinations of a gate with an inverter at one input". The second mention still doesn't define it: "This allows AND and OR gates to be built, but not inverters, and so is an incomplete form of logic". Finally, on the third and final mention, it's defined: "In electronics a NOT gate is more commonly called an inverter". Note that the article did not say, "an inverter is sometimes called a NOT gate". This article, and probably others, needs fixed to upgrade the profile of inverter, regardless of the outcome of my move proposal. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it. It now links the more common name (inverter) at first use. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Good. But rather than:
"All other types of Boolean logic gates (i.e., AND, OR, XOR, and XNOR gates, and inverters or NOT gates) can be created...", I think either
"All other types of Boolean logic gates—i.e., AND, OR, XOR, and XNOR gates, and inverters (NOT gates)—can be created..." or
"All other types of Boolean logic gates—i.e., AND, OR, XOR, and XNOR gates, and inverters (NOT gates)—can be created..." would be better. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

## Smallest digital building block.

Inverters are the smallest digital building block, but they are not the only digital building block. I changed the text since the way it was written, readers could interpret that all digital circuits coud be built using just inverters (NOT gates), and that is not the case.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I made further edits. Latches are not just crossed inverters but require gating (and then there's that pesky tunnel diode). The section is trying to say something more general, but it misses the mark. Simple combination functions can be made in a depth of three: NOT/AND/OR. Material from the following section (universality) could be moved up. Glrx (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Glrx:; It's true, the latch needs two more transistors to the +/- data lines to be able to read or overwrite its value, but its heart is the looped inverters. Having said that, including that information in the paragraph even if it is correct, does not necessarily add value to the article, so I agree with your edit. I think it is easier to read and understand after your last edit. I also agree with your suggestion, to mention the other two basic building blocks AND/OR and then moving up the NAND, NOR universality. If there are no arguments against it, I think we should do it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

## Diagrams & Symbols

I can't be the only one who's a bit confused that the symbol used for transistors in the diagrams here doesn't match any of the ones in the transistor entry. I find the diagrams quite hard to follow, probably as a consequence. --Oolong (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

## 4049 is a hex inverter/buffer

I was redirected here from "4049" The high speed CMOS 4049 is commonly used as a general purpose buffer to amplify the current in a logic signal. That way a logic output can drive more gate inputs or an external power mosfet gate while maintaining sharp square wave state transistions. One gate in a 4049 can drive the inputs of at least three 4049 gates for more power and two inverter stages in a row then acts as a non-inverting buffer. Thought I should mention this... that the 4049 is a buffer as well as a logic gate. Enough in parallel can charge/discharge cycle the capacitance of both P and N channel power mosfet gates at high frequencies for PWM switching applications etc. Fencelizard (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, If you can find a reliable source to reference the information you can add it to the article along with the source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)