Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Quick boolean algebra problem..help needed

  • 22-11-2006 07:54PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,238 ✭✭✭


    HI,
    I hope this is the right forum..
    Well I am just doing a bit of revising for boolean algebra and de morgans rule and came across this in an equation.. I cant seem to work out how part 1 = part 2 or if it is even correct? COuld someone please shed some light on it? See attachment.

    Thanks,
    Hakko


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,238 ✭✭✭techguy


    thanks hobbes I knew there was a maths forums but it was tos up as to which forum to post in..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Well, you know the rule for boolean algebra? Break the line, change the sign.

    Also, you can add two "not's" on top of a problem without changing it. i.e. stick two more lines on top of the left hand problem so that it's
    not(not(not(NOT(A) + NOT(B) + C))) (works best if you write it down :p)

    Then just break one of the lines, change the signs of everything beneath the line that you broke. You can then remove any excess double-nots over individual letters (not(not(A))) = A, then solve the remainder using normal techniques.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭Webmonkey


    It isn't a valid logic statement. They are not equal.

    And the breaking line changing sign is DeMorgans Theorm.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Webmonkey wrote:
    It isn't a valid logic statement. They are not equal.
    I never tried actually solving it myself. I was too lazy to work it out :p
    And the breaking line changing sign is DeMorgans Theorm.
    I had forgotten the name of the rule, i just remembered the method. It's 2 years since i've solved these kind of questions ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭Webmonkey


    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,746 ✭✭✭✭Misticles


    i got part 1 to equal part 2


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    Try putting in
    A = 1
    B = 1
    C = 0

    The left side evaluates to true, the right side evaluates to false (if i'm doing this right).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭Webmonkey


    Yep exact same for me


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,238 ✭✭✭techguy


    Thanks guys, the notes I got 1st time round were wrong..
    it should be:
    (' = not)
    (A'+B'+AC)' = (B'+A'+C)' (not de morgans but another rule..)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,943 ✭✭✭Mutant_Fruit


    (A'+B'+AC)' = (B'+A'+C)'

    Break it down to just this:
    A' + AC = A' + C

    Look at the left side, here there's both an A and A'. If A is true, the output relies solely on C being true or false. If A is false, the output is false no matter what C is.

    So, you can break this down to just A' + AC = A' + C as was shown above. That make sense?

    Simlarly, what would A'B + AB' break down into? *hopes he got the example right*


Advertisement