20 Sep 07
Originally posted by Palynkai quote: "Therefore, as far as computers is concerned, 1 + 1 = 0"
He said:
"1 AND 0 = 0"
He did not say:
"1 + 0 = 0"
Look at his post.
Edit - Well said, wolfgang.
maybe it is you who needs to read his post...! read it again and get back to me, did he not say that...? therefore, he/she was wrong... gonna apologise now..?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopDon't try to change the subject. The boolean algebra posted by lausey was:
i quote: "Therefore, as far as computers is concerned, 1 + 1 = 0"
maybe it is you who needs to read his post...! read it again and get back to me, did he not say that...? therefore, he/she was wrong... gonna apologise now..?
0 AND 0 = 0
1 AND 0 = 0
0 AND 1 = 0
1 AND 1 = 1
Originally posted by eatmybishop
your boolean algebra is incorrect..
This is what I quoted and to what I said "Wrong." You changed every one of his AND to "+" and claimed HIS algebra was incorrect.
It's sad that you have such short memory problems, really.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by Palynkai'm not changing the subject, it's a really simple question, can you answer it for me? did lausey say in his/her post: "Therefore, as far as computers is concerned, 1 + 1 = 0"
Don't try to change the subject. The boolean algebra posted by lausey was:
[b]0 AND 0 = 0
1 AND 0 = 0
0 AND 1 = 0
1 AND 1 = 1
Originally posted by eatmybishop
your boolean algebra is incorrect..
This is what I quoted and to what I said "Wrong." You changed every one of his AND to "+" and claimed HIS algebra was incorrect.
It's sad that you have such short memory problems, really.[/b]
it's a really simple question, can you just answer yes or no?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopNo. He said:
i'm not changing the subject, it's a really simple question, can you answer it for me? did lausey say in his/her post: "Therefore, as far as computers is concerned, 1 + 1 = 0"
it's a really simple question, can you just answer yes or no?
"1 + 1 = 0 (with 1 as a carry bit)" but he wasn't talking about boolean there.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopJoke. Maybe not a particularly funny one, but a joke.
yes you can, just like you can if you program in c or java... do you honestly think the cpu architecture sees it that way; of course not, i also program in assembly; c++, java, c etc will have their statements converted to an in-memory layout via the compiler using the natural expressions of boolean algebra... did you learn anything about c++???
But if you do want to be picky - no, you can't do it in Java. Java doesn't support operator overloading (except for the built-in overloading of + for String concatenation).
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou just did exactly what I have been doing, so you can come down from that high horse.
Is this discussion sill in progress?
Guys, this is simple stuff, can't you just look it up in books instead of discussing different things (Boolean algebra and binary arithmetics) as it were the same thing.
This is not even amusing, it is embarrassing...
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitheh, that brings back memories. 🙂 we had to make all basic hardware components out of logic gates (on paper) in our computer architecture class in the uni. it was a bit of a pain, but at the same time extremely illuminating. suddenly assembler started to make a whole lot more sense.
For 500 points, which three types of logic gates are used to add numbers?
21 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWe sit both firm and steady on the high horse, we shouldn't leave it.
You just did exactly what I have been doing, so you can come down from that high horse.
I've read all your postings in this thread and I cannot find any error you've made. We agree totally and we both know the difference between Boolean algebra and binary arithmetics.
I can't understand why people find it so hard to understand, there are sources everywhere on internet, why doesn't people read it in order to understand? Why do people try to bend the definitions just to win the discussion? The truth is out there, go find it!