Talk:Boolean function

Mathematics Stub‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Plus and its vicissitudes

JA: In mathematical contexts, let me recommend using "+" for the field operation in GF(2), and thus for the boolean operation also known as "XOR", "NEQ", etc. This is the way that Boole originally used it, so it's a misnomer to describe inclusive disjunction by that name. When Peirce and Jevons later made OR a main squeeze, they respected prior algebraic use and coined new symbols for it, Peirce using "+," at first. It seems to have been Schröder who initiated the perversion of using "+" for OR, and that became more commmon in engineering applications, but it has caused almost as much miscommunication and consequent wasted resources as English and Metric units on the same spacecraft. Jon Awbrey 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had been in two minds as to whether I should use "+". My knowledge of boolean functions is pretty much limited to their uses in crypto, so feel free to edit as you see fit. …Ner102 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "logical operator" directed to this page?

There is also the article "logical connective" with direct reference regarding "logical operator" as the preferred term in algebraic logic. An explanation of the concept follows (that explanation cannot be found here under "Boolean function").

At least I as a layman in that filed could not find a good piece of reference for a "logical operator" under the present article. This existing redirect seems to be somewhat vague. Maybe "logical operator" should be redirected to "logical connective" instead of here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.91.114 (talk) 15 May 2006

JA: This whole complex of articles is currently in the process of being cleaned up. Right at the moment, though, the best target for logical operator and logical operation both is boolean function. The reason is this: Strictly speaking, a logical operator is an operation on logical values, values like true and false, while a logical connective is really an operator on syntactic strings, say, sentences. Some of these distinctions have gotted mushed over in recent years for various historical and philosophical POV reasons. The relevant articles will eventually be rewritten to make all of this more clear, so stay tuned. Jon Awbrey 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that logic operation, instead, redirects to Boolean logic (which, strangely, isn't ever linked to in this article). I haven't changed this yet, since it all looks like a mess, but this definitely needs attention. LjL 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would probably be best to create a separate article "logical operator" and explain the differences as well as different relations of the concept. 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.91.114 (talk)

JA: I redirected "logic operation" to boolean function for now. One of the confusions that developed over the years is that most mathematicians consider "operation" and "operator" to be synonyms, while some folks in philosophy and also engineering use "operator" to mean something morally equivalent to the "symbol" that denotes the corresponding operation. Jon Awbrey 02:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support user:213.219.91.114. The claim that Logical operation is some part of the boolean functions theory is not valid. There are some differences deeply in mathematical logics, some of which are visible in programming. For exapmle, in C a statement like if ( check_condition && some_condition() ) { do_somephing; }; has nothing to do with boolean function $\land$ . гык 11:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know its been a long time since somebody has looked in here, but a Boolean Operator is also a word or symbol helped to refine searches in a search engine, and while related, is not one of the described topics. I made a brief entry about it, but if it cannot be expanded, merging is suggested. Colonel Marksman (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean function

There is a typo on the Boolean function page.

There are 2 to the 2 to the k functions from f:B to the k -> B.

But the count appears AFTER the introduction of general boolean-valued functions:

"More generally, a function of the form f : X → B, where X is an arbitrary set, is a boolean-valued function. If X = M = {1, 2, 3, …}, then f is a binary sequence, that is, an infinite sequence of 0's and 1's. If X = [k] = {1, 2, 3, …, k}, then f is a binary sequence of length k.

There are 2 to the 2 to the k such functions."

For the prior functions with domain X = [k], there are only 2 to the k functions. I suggest moving the 2 to the 2 to the k before the prior paragraph..

All Greek to me

I thought I knew a bit about Boolean functions, and looked up this page to learn more. I couldn't understand enough of it to work out what Boolean functions are. I studied 2 years of university level maths (pure and applied), though admittedly a few years ago.

Could we have an intro that regular people understand? --Chriswaterguy talk 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== ditto on the all Greek==

I've completed Calculus III and I have no idea what any of this article is talking about either. I could be wrong but I believe only mathemeticians will understand it. I wish these articles could be more helpful to the general population. The authors are probably more concerned with being scrutinized by their equals than with being helpful to the learners. I know this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' but who is it helping if that position is taken?

I think people who surf Wikipedia and scrutinize and criticize the minutia of the technical details of the authors really are doing more harm than good. I think Wikipedia should be for everybody, not just the elite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.240.11 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]