Talk:Canonical normal form

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canonical normal form article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Logic Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

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]

an arbitrary Boolean algebra?

The heading said "in a Boolean algebra", so I disambiguated to Boolean algebra (structure) because of the indefinite article a. But it seems unlikely to me that such a result holds for arbitrary functions from Bⁿ to B, where B is an arbitrary Boolean algebra. Would someone like to clarify what is intended here? --Trovatore 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that every Boolean expression can be written in both forms holds in an arbitrary Boolean algebra, because it follows from Boolean algebra (uncountable). I will remove the definite article, change the link, and edit the article so it also mentions the terms that mathematicians use: disjunctive normal form and conjunctive normal form. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major expansion of this article

I've tried to respond to the editors' desire for expansion and clarification, plus all the issues raised in readers' posts. My viewpoint, as one of the designers of the Apollo Guidance Computer, is to pursue two goals. The first is of course the academic definition of canonical form, minterms, and maxterms. The second is to show how these academic concepts rub up against the real world. Hughbs (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]