On 11-Sep-16 18:19, Lincoln A Baxter wrote:
> Having followed this discussion (more or less, I have no clue what the
> MiuneMcCluskey alorithm is), but I like Logic::Minimise
>
> Lincoln
Quine-McCluskey is used to simplify boolean functions. It's similar to
Karnaugh maps, which may be familiar to
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 02:46:18PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> - The correct spelling is Logic::Minimise
Try searching for "minimise" at oed.com. See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling
But in summary, "minimise" is an acceptable alternative spelling for
"minimize", both are cor
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:44:13PM +0100, Smylers wrote:
> Paul Johnson writes:
>
> > To be clear, my tongue was firmly in my cheek for that last
> > suggestion, but that doesn't seem to travel too well over SMTP.
>
> Sure, I realized it was a cheeky suggestion.
>
> But there are enough UK folk
Paul Johnson writes:
> To be clear, my tongue was firmly in my cheek for that last
> suggestion, but that doesn't seem to travel too well over SMTP.
Sure, I realized it was a cheeky suggestion.
But there are enough UK folk about who complain about -ize being “an
Americanism” that there might've
To be clear, my tongue was firmly in my cheek for that last suggestion,
but that doesn't seem to travel too well over SMTP. And the myriad
smileys which adorned my initial message seem to have been similarly
lost.
3/10 must try harder
(Smylers, well done on avoiding the past participle of "spell
Paul Johnson writes:
> - The Logic namespace looks like a mess, but I think this module would
>fit better in there: Logic::Minimize
> - The correct spelling is Logic::Minimise
UK English allows both -ize and -ise endings on many verbs*; USA English
only has -ize. So picking the one that's v
On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 14:46 +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 05:58:35AM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> > * John M. Gamble [2016-09-09 22:12]:
> > > Technically it's math, but I suspect people would be more likely
> to use
> > > the keyword 'boolean', or perhaps 'digital lo
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 05:58:35AM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * John M. Gamble [2016-09-09 22:12]:
> > Technically it's math, but I suspect people would be more likely to use
> > the keyword 'boolean', or perhaps 'digital logic', when looking for
> > something like this.
> >
> > (For supp
* John M. Gamble [2016-09-09 22:12]:
> Technically it's math, but I suspect people would be more likely to use
> the keyword 'boolean', or perhaps 'digital logic', when looking for
> something like this.
>
> (For supporting evidence, the Wikipedia article on the Quine-McCluskey
> algorithm nowhere
Ah, no, sorry, I clearly didn't explain this well. A Boolean truth table
is not a matrix, and does not evaluate a Boolean expression (if anything,
it's the reverse. It takes the evaluations and re-creates the expression.
This gets complicated as the number of variables grows).
Technically it's mat
I think I'd look for such a module in the Math:: namespace.
I also found these modules which may be similar: Math::BooleanEval,
Math::MatrixBool.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:33 PM, John M. Gamble wrote:
> A while back I was granted co-maintenance of Algorithm::QuineMcCluskey. It
> handles one Bo
11 matches
Mail list logo
