Andromeda@beehaw.org to 196English · 4 days agoSouth Afrulecabeehaw.orgimagemessage-square11fedilinkarrow-up1230cross-posted to: science_memes@mander.xyz
arrow-up1230imageSouth Afrulecabeehaw.orgAndromeda@beehaw.org to 196English · 4 days agomessage-square11fedilinkcross-posted to: science_memes@mander.xyz
minus-squareScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up10·edit-24 days agoThe Nor and Nand text is swapped around I was wrong, my review comment is that your expressions could do with some parentheses for clarity
minus-squareCatt@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up12·edit-24 days agoNope, the text is correct. not (x or y) <=> (not x) and (not y) not (x and y) <=> (not x) or (not y) Edit: The parenthesis on the right side if the equivalence are only there to make it easier to read. Without those, the expression would be the same in this case
minus-squareScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up4·4 days agoAh yeah, the English is confusing written how it is in the post, I needed the parentheses for it to make sense
minus-squareantonlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·4 days agoIt’s correct, as the negation applies to the output. As that is difficult to describe in the English language, they applied De Morgan’s law first.
The Nor and Nand text is swapped aroundI was wrong, my review comment is that your expressions could do with some parentheses for clarity
Nope, the text is correct.
Edit: The parenthesis on the right side if the equivalence are only there to make it easier to read. Without those, the expression would be the same in this case
Ah yeah, the English is confusing written how it is in the post, I needed the parentheses for it to make sense
It’s correct, as the negation applies to the output. As that is difficult to describe in the English language, they applied De Morgan’s law first.