Talk:Boolean values: Difference between revisions

 

::: Eh I didn't say anything about two-valued system. Go through literatures and you'll see that LCM and GCD can make a Boolean algebra on ''some'' bounded sets like {1, 2, 3, 6} (all divisors of 6); on the set of all positive integers (or non-negative integers, or all integers) it doesn't work because you can't have a consistent complement/NOT operator, as I've shown above. You can forgo the NOT operator and universal bounds, and call the rest "Rdm Algebra", or "Ledrug Algebra" if you don't like it, but it's not Boolean: Boole intended to formalize thought process and decision making, thus lacking a negation operation makes it singly useless in this regard.

 

::: As to Shannon "dumbing it down" (I guess you'd rather put it this way) to two values, again, since it's about decisions, making the results always "yes" or "no" is at least practical.

 

::: More to the point of the task, though, is that I think the task is fine as is; within the context of computers, it's not wrong to think "Boolean values" means "true or false". If you want to introduce another task on Boolean algebra in the more formal mathematical sense, that's fine too, just make sure your introductory example is correct. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

: I think it'd be fine to rename this page to [[Binary values]]. It's clearly not specific to Boolean logic or algebra, and those concepts could warrant their own task (or set of tasks). Of course, [[Binary values]] would need to be disambiguated from [[Binary represenatation]], but I think that would be fine as well. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)