Talk:Ternary logic: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→test case: cmp?) |
(→Task structure: Just added the ''Logic Operators'' in ''Truth Tables''.) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Task structure== |
==Task structure== |
||
How about adding a truth table for implementation and cutting the history/leaving a link to the history?--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
How about adding a truth table for implementation and cutting the history/leaving a link to the history?--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Just added the ''Logic Operators'' in ''Truth Tables''. [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 11:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:33, 26 August 2011
test case
re: "Kudos (κῦδος) for actually thinking up a test case algorithm where ternary logic is intrinsically useful, optimises the test case algorithm and is preferable to binary logic".
I know that calculating Perfect numbers and Matrix-exponentiation_operator in binary has some algorithmic advantages. I imagine that there is some problem would benefit from Ternary logic. Any hints or suggestions?
NevilleDNZ 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- On first reading, it seems like you are implementing an analogue of the cmp function from C and C based languages. Or am I completely misunderstanding? --Thundergnat 11:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Task structure
How about adding a truth table for implementation and cutting the history/leaving a link to the history?--Paddy3118 08:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Just added the Logic Operators in Truth Tables. NevilleDNZ 11:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)