--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP]
I find the >2 conditions case weird. Is that usual to extend
[SNIP]
Am I the only one who thinks that way? I guess I've never run across an XOR conditional with more than 2 operands... --DD
DD, I would have thought so too, but I googled for "xor" and the first hit was:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/XOR.html
Which says, among other things:
(quote) For multiple arguments, XOR is defined to be true if an odd number of its arguments are true, and false otherwise. This definition is quite common in computer science, where XOR is usually thought of as addition modulo 2. In this context, it arises in polynomial algebra modulo 2, arithmetic circuits with a full adder, and in parity generating or checking. While this means that the multiargument "XOR" can no longer be thought of as "the exclusive OR" operation, this form is rarely used in mathematical logic and so does not cause very much confusion. (end quote)
I guess we learned something today. ;)
-Matt
Consider yourselves enlightened :)
I didn't know about the formal definition either, it was just the <and> and <or> tasks worked on >2 elements, so I added the same code to the xor thing by chaining the (associative) operation. The outcome of the chain (true for an odd number of true inputs) is what you get when you start off with an initial value (false) that works for the first two inputs.
-steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
