This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||
|
|
|
[Added on 9/24/2007] The second replacement has now happened and seems to have generated no controversy after two months, except for the "brick wall of text" remark below, with which I fully agree and may try to do something about at some point by breaking up paragraphs and supplying lots of diagrams and pictures. The rest of this talk page deals with the first replacement---since it all refers to a now historic article it may as well be archived appropriately in its entirety. Since I'm likely to break something attempting that, would someone good at archiving who agrees with this please do the honors? Thanks. --Vaughan Pratt 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is completely unreadable. The section on Laws should be displayed as a list, not a series of paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.64 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
First, as the content of this article may very well serve the public understanding of and bridge between logic and mathematics, it is certainly top priority! Next, when I cross-referred to the page on logical 'disjunction', I met somewhat of a startling revelation that I believe user 148.122.181.240 referred to above, almost 2.5 y ago, the audio article was so much clearer and more useful to me than the algebraic table, symbols, operations, and all those other wonderful mathematical representations! Please do not misconstrue my 'meaning', which is just what this message is about. I found it much easier to assimilate the rest of the article, including the algebra, after having listened to the audio file on disjunction that clarified the 'meaning' with 'real world' examples that most of us can identify with.
So, where is the audio file on Boolean algebra (logic)? Kdarwish (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC) kdarwish
This topic is very confusing and hard to follow. For example, "More generally Boolean algebra is the algebra of values from any Boolean algebra as a model of the laws of Boolean algebra." I don't think you are supposed to use the same words to explain the previous words. I know I am generalizing, but after reading this page several times, I am more confused than when I started. My suggestion would be to simplify the language dramatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.151.47 (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a textbook, but a section with examples in of some boolean expressions would be really helpful. Seeing examples (simple ones as well as complex ones), would give the user a deeper understanding of the concepts and an easier grasps on the formulas. Though there are a few examples here and there, a dedicated section would be very useful. Ali Khan (talk)
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2005. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
1. Pick whichever article has the better name. In this case, I would say it's the
article specifying "elementary".
2. Ensure that this is the superior article in content, too. 3. Replace the inferior article with a redirection to the superior article.
(The redirection might work if you simply insert it, but I've never tried that).
Brewhaha@edmc.net 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see talk:Boolean algebra#Revisiting naming (my proposal there affects this article also). --Trovatore 23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Now please see talk:Boolean algebra#naming -- trying again. --Trovatore 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The promised merge has happened. Feedback from "those who use Boolean applications in electronics and computers, and those taking classes in Boolean logic in school" (the target audience of the old version as per User:StuRat) would be helpful both to make sure the merge wasn't a step backwards and to make whatever improvements those audiences might benefit from. For example are there clear boundaries between parts that could usefully be spun off as separate articles serving different audiences, or are the different audiences served by the article happy to browse around to find the bits most relevant to them? --Vaughan Pratt 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the two applications subsections (under respectively Values and Operations) to Boolean algebra (introduction) where they have combined to form its applications section at the end. There is still much overlap between these two articles. The main items in this article not covered by Boolean algebra (introduction) are the sections on derivations and soundness/completeness, and perhaps some of the material on the ring basis and related topics. Suggestions for how to continue and organize this cutting-back process for this article solicited. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
for easier reading and navigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.3.139.2 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
For whatever reason, many of the symbols used to describe formulae are showing as a square. Does anyone know what language pack is needed to display them properly? Oorang (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[Added on 11/15/2008] It would be good if we could a new chapter, where all boolean operations are described in a more tidy way than in part 2.3. Like with one sub-chapter for each existing operation with a paragraph explaining it, a truth table, and the symbolic notations as well as the short mnemonic used in programming language (AND, NAND, XOR, ...). Thanks. --Nuxly Friday, 2008-11-14 16:42 UTC
The Inkscape article links here when talking about boolean operations on paths. The idea is for example that, given paths p and q, containing the (sets of) points P and Q respectively, "p OR q" is defined as r such that (its set of points) "R = P UNION Q". While this may seem intuitive to us, the article doesn't mention this and I think that maybe it isn't very informative for people coming here from the Inkscape article. I'm also unsure whether such a thing should be included here, or perhaps on one of the articles on set theory or perhaps in its own article. Your thoughts? Shinobu (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Lots of the symbols don't work and are just throwing up squares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.31.40 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
From the article: "Two Boolean laws having no numeric counterpart are the laws characterizing logical negation, namely x ∧ ¬x = 0 and x ∨ ¬x = 1."
How about x + -x = 0 and x * x^-1 = 1, respectively? 84.209.121.30 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal regarding this page. Please see Talk:Boolean_algebra#Merge_October_2012 and comment there. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)