Talk:Ternary operation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Low Importance
 Field:  Foundations, logic, and set theory

Operation vs operator[edit]

Why is ternary operation sharing a page with ternary operator? Although similar and related concepts, they are not exactly the same. A ternary operation in mathematics maps . Whereas a ternary operator is just something that takes three arguments. A vector triple product is an example of a ternary operator but it is not a ternary operation, since it takes three vectors and gives a scalar result.

I would propose separating the two pages with links from each pointing toward the other for people who find themselves in the wrong place.--Hawthorn 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for ternary/tertiary[edit]

Where is the citation [1], for "ternary" instead of "tertiary".Naveen Kumar Molleti (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Nav11aug

Agreed. I originally made the edit to tertiary being a proper use, and do not agree with its invalidity. The citation given (which does not show up properly in wiki, I assume because of the colon in the url, and cannot be reached on the webserver that hosts it [had to use google cache]) itself gives no real proof. If I do not see a proper citation on this soon I will revert the edit, as I believe my citation (Microsoft) to be a more valid reference than a random guy on a forum. Dakusan (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thirded. The reference only says that "tertiary" is incorrect without reason. Ternary is clearly correct by extension of unary, binary, etc. IMO, "tertiary" is not wrong: it means third order, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to call it. You wouldn't say "secondary" because that could mean "of lesser importance", but you might say "second order". Kjsharke (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

I have deleted the following external link recently added by User:Boolean hexadecimal. It links only to a diagram on a flickr page. The diagram is completely devoid of explanation and its relevance to the article is very unclear. External links should be to authoritative sources of further information. This flickr page diagram isn't either.

Hawthorn (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi. The octeract graph is just the introducing image to this page. Below there is a list of hexadecimal numbers, linking to diagrams of ternary Boolean operations, like 01 (the conjunctions), 7F (the disjunctions), or 16, showing the minimal negation operator. 17 is a very special operator, but seems to be nameless.
You don't see the connection with the octeract graph? Just look in the bottom right corner of the linked diagrams.
Greetings, Boolean hexadecimal (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Move examples?[edit]

As the first section states, the ?: operator is just one kind of ternary operators. Why do we have a verbose list of only one of the ternary operators? This list should be moved to the ternary conditional operator.

As examples we should list the different types instead, such as ?: in many programming languages, and maybe SQL BETWEEN AND as another (Value1 BETWEEN Value2 AND Value3). --Vbakke (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the examples should be moved to the page about the conditional ternary operator and merged with the existing examples there. They shouldn't just be deleted; maybe there are details in the examples here that are missing in the examples there. I also agree that this page should focus on listing examples of ternary operators, as you mention. Jhertel (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Melchoir (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Closure of A under x[edit]

The main body paragraph states that . Is this a necessary condition for the operation, or should it actually be , for the codomain ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRubbermaid (talkcontribs) 12:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)