3 ms·
I don't think you logic works. Your table says that if a 0 is in-putted then there is a .1 chance of getting a 0 and a .8 chance of getting a 1. That leaves a p
by d4vlx 14y ago
I don't think you logic works. Your table says that if a 0 is in-putted then there is a .1 chance of getting a 0 and a .8 chance of getting a 1. That leaves a probability of .1 or something else happening, but it you add a third state it is no longer a not gate.
In other words, a not gate, regardless of the implementation must have it's columns sum to 1. This is a fundamental principle of probability and the definition of a not gate.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dmlorenzetti 14y agoYour comment supposes that the column headers are the inputs. However, I used the definition from the article-- "Here the numbers along the left edge, labeling the rows of the matrix, are the inputs to the gate..." So, taking the columns as the outputs, my point is that adding down the columns corresponds to no particular causal relationship in the physics of the gate. Your comment did, however, make me realize that I hadn't modified the row probabilities for the second row to sum to one (11-month old under foot). So thanks for that.