0
\$\begingroup\$

I was given an expression which I simplified using k-maps to obtain the following:

~WY + W~YZ + ~W~X~Z

I followed along with some of the other workings people have done for converting functions, but I'm getting stuck. Here's an example:

~~(~WY + W~YZ + ~W~X~Z)

~(~(~WY)~(W~YZ)~(~W~X~Z)

~( (W+~Y) + (~W + Y + ~Z) + (W + X + Z) )

My issue now is, where do I go from here? I have obtained some in direct NOR form, so for instance ~(W+~Y) is a nor expression. Issue is, I have to create a logic circuit for the final instance. And converting each of these to NOR, NOT = taking two inputs of the same literal into a single NOR gate, then taking W+~Y into a NOR gate as well.

Repeating this process for further terms leads to a similar issue where my final logic circuit is resulting in a lot of NOR gates that doesn't really simplify the circuit. If someone could confirm that my logic is correct I would appreciate it.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmm. Your last expression results in FALSE, though I think you are missing a closed paren. So I may be looking at it wrong. Using the double-NOT to start is the right beginning process, though. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 4, 2023 at 14:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ I get ~( ~( ~W + ~(Y + ~Z) ) + ~( Y + ~( ~(~X + Z) + ~(W + ~Z) ) ) ). I can show the process, if needed. That's not the only approach, though. I had a choice at one stage where there were two directions to choose readily from. I picked one. The other would have created a different NOR result (same resulting logic, though.) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 4, 2023 at 14:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @periblepsis you're right I did miss out on the closed parenthesis, corrected that. If you could illustrate the main difference between the approach you took in the working versus mine I would appreciate it. I'm mostly still a bit iffy about the fact that, this simplification is a part of an earlier question, and somehow the NOR gates are supposed to be making the circuit more efficient. But if anything, this working only appears to be making it a more redundant circuit. \$\endgroup\$
    – agni_ka1
    Commented Oct 4, 2023 at 16:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't have your context. All i can do is show a method that produces only 2-in NOR gates. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 4, 2023 at 16:25

1 Answer 1

0
\$\begingroup\$

Well, here's my process:

$$\begin{align*} F&=\overline{W}Y + W\overline{Y}Z + \overline{W}\overline{X}\overline{Z} \\\\ &=\overline{\overline{\overline{W}Y + W\overline{Y}Z + \overline{W}\overline{X}\overline{Z}}} \\\\ &=\overline{W Y + W \overline{Z} + \overline{W}\overline{Y}Z+X\overline{Y}\overline{Z}} \\\\ &=\overline{\overline{\overline{W Y + W \overline{Z}}} + \overline{\overline{\overline{W}\overline{Y}Z+X\overline{Y}\overline{Z}}}} \\\\ &=\overline{\overline{\overline{W}+\overline{Y}Z} + \overline{Y+W Z + \overline{X}\overline{Z}}} \\\\ &=\overline{\overline{\overline{W}+\overline{Y+\overline{Z}}} + \overline{Y+\overline{\overline{W Z + \overline{X}\overline{Z}}}}} \\\\ &=\overline{\overline{\overline{W}+\overline{Y+\overline{Z}}} + \overline{Y+\overline{X \overline{Z}+\overline{W}Z}}} \\\\ &=\overline{\overline{\overline{W}+\overline{Y+\overline{Z}}} + \overline{Y+\overline{\overline{\overline{X}+ Z}+\overline{W+\overline{Z}}}}} \end{align*}$$

I've no promise that it's optimized in any way. And it's only for 2-in NORs. But it does follow a process that should work for you.

You seem already familiar with the basic idea. But just getting stuck here and there. Hopefully, the above clears up that log-jam.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.