Timeline for Why are sum-of-products implementations more popular than product-of-sums implementations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2020 at 12:25 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | I think DeMorgan's step 1 is also wrong. | |
| Feb 5, 2020 at 10:24 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | I rephrased "is either a dug duck or dog" because I thought "dug" was a typo, then I realised a "dug" is meant to be something which is both a duck and a dog. Sorry if there's any confusion. | |
| Feb 5, 2020 at 10:23 | history | edited | Criticizing Israel not allowed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2012 at 17:07 | comment | added | supercat |
As for your second example, I would suggest that the most natural description would be to describe it in terms of when P is false, using sum-of-products and inverting the result. Even with non-inverted SOP, there's no need for 13 terms. I think only five are needed: !B + C!D + A!D + AC + !A!CD, for example.
|
|
| Dec 7, 2012 at 16:54 | comment | added | supercat | I would add that even in when things are expressed in product-of-sums form, the normal method of human-evaluating them would be to invert them to yield product of sums. If there does not exist anything meeting all three criteria, that implies that everything must 'fail' at least one; only quacking ducks fail the first, only barking dogs fail the second, and things which are neither dogs nor ducks fail the third. In other words, back to sum-of-products. | |
| Dec 7, 2012 at 1:30 | history | answered | Kaz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |