Anonymous user
Talk:Ternary logic: Difference between revisions
→Variable_truthfulness
(→Variable_truthfulness: some explanations) |
|||
Line 57:
: Well, for now it doesn't have a good place to go to. As to not being ternary logic per se, it can be reduced to one pretty easily though: define 1 as TRUE, 0 as FALSE, and anything in between as MAYBE, then the operator tables can be reproduced exactly. Since the "variable truths" are just [[wp:Probability|probabilities]], I'm not sure what more refs are needed without making it appear more complicated than necessary.
: This C entry was sort of targeting the kudos part of the task. To me, the most interesting place to use a "maybe" would be at the control flows (<code>if3</code>), but that requires knowledge of ''how'' ambiguous such an ambiguity is, hence the numeric values. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 14:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest: A good place for it to go to is as a "Draft Task" with appropriate details of what the task is rather then complicate [[Ternary_logic]]. Also: A brief description of "variable truths" (or even [[wp:Qubit|Qubit]]s) might help the draft task.
[[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 15:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||