3 ms·
I'd rather argue the opposite since XOR gates in hardware with more than 2 inputs also implement sum-modulo-2. Therefore I'd prefer the exactly-1-of-N-inputs-i
by tempodox 4y ago
I'd rather argue the opposite since XOR gates in hardware with more than 2 inputs also implement sum-modulo-2. Therefore I'd prefer the exactly-1-of-N-inputs-is-true (N > 1) function to be named differently.
- adrian_b 4y agoThese 2 logical functions have been named correctly and used so for centuries, so there is no need to change any name. The confusion between their names has appeared only some time around 1950, when someone of the designers of the first computers, while implementing in hardware the parity function, a.k.a. modulo-2 sum function, has decided nonetheless to give it the XOR mnemonic from the different "exclusive or" function. and then many others have followed this usage. It is OK now to use XOR, but one should always be well aware that XOR means parity a.k.a. modulo-2 sum, and not "exclusive or". I have replied to the parent comment, where the computer mnemonic "xor" was used to mean "exclusive or" in natural language, which is not recommended, as it may be not clear which is the intended meaning, because "xor", in its normal usage, does not mean "exclusive or". It should be noted that in mathematical notation, the 3 logical quantifiers "for all X ...", "there exists a X ..." and "there exists a unique X ..." correspond to the 3 logical functions "and", "or" and "exclusive or", and not to "and", "or" and "xor" (in the normal meaning of "xor").
- tempodox 4y agoThanks for that clarification :)