I agree with Chris. Traditional KR has a heritage of and/or/not. Why
change? Besides, isn't the proliferation ofthe nand/nor approach
rooted in the production efficiencies of gate manufacturing? What's
to gain? (01)
Cameron. (02)
Kojeware Corporation (03)
On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
wrote: (04)
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>> Chris and John,
>>
>> Actually, Nand and Nor logic is no more complex than And and Or
>> logic, in my
>> opinion. I used it extensively in digital circuit design once upon
>> a time
>> and never noticed any inconvenience or confusion at all.
>
> No one claimed that Nand and Nor are confusing or that there
> couldn't be contexts where it would be more convenient to use them.
>
>> In fact, I consider it actually simpler, because And functions are
>> intuitively there to detect conjoint conditions in which, when
>> detected, you
>> want to remove from the inputs of the logic function that is
>> inhibited by
>> the Nand gate.
>
> Noted.
>
>> Using Karnaugh maps, or Yates transforms, or algebraic
>> simplification for
>> balancing evidence, is every bit as easy, clear and intuitive in
>> Nand/Nor as
>> in And/Or, IMHO.
>>
>> Popper says that a falsifiable theory must have at least one ground
>> case
>> that is detected (usually defined as And conditions) to falsify the
>> theory.
>> Alternatively, a variable that ranges over a specific set of ground
>> cases
>> suffices for the same action. Whether that is implemented in Nand/
>> Nor or
>> And/Or is immaterial. Note that And/Or gates are electronically more
>> complex, with more circuitry actually REQUIRED, than for Nand and
>> Nor gates.
>
> Sure, but none of this is to the point. Of course one can come up
> with examples of contexts in which Nand or Nor would be
> theoretically or practically more useful or convenient than using
> the more common boolean connectives. The issue is the appropriate
> language for writing most ontologies by most knowledge engineers in
> most contexts. It is simply a greater conceptual challenge to
> master and work exclusively to work with Nand and Nor than with and,
> or, and not. It would be, frankly, ridiculous to require ontology
> writers generally, e.g., to have to conceptualize (not A) as (nand A
> A).
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|