Editing 2497: Logic Gates

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
The comic lists {{w|logic gate}}s. The first six are real but the last six are made up and get increasingly absurd. The names for these last six use the same letters and syllables as the first six so as to appear at a glance to be consistent with their naming conventions.
+
{{incomplete|Created by a SILICON LOGIC GATE TO A DIFFERENT DIMENSION. The table explaining what the made-up gates would do is incomplete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
  
Some of the ways the gate parts are combined seemingly-impossibly can raise ideas in the mind of the reader of how quantum computing involves processing multiple possibilities at once, or how machine learning involves solving systems backward from their outputs to their inputs. The names ring of calling more and more profoundly to some mythological catastrophe.
+
The comic lists {{w|logic gate}}s. The first six are real, but the last six are made up and get increasingly absurd. The names for these last six are made up of the same letters and syllables as the first six so as to appear at a glance to be consistent with their naming conventions.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"  
 
{| class="wikitable"  
Line 51: Line 51:
 
If the gate obeys only AND logic and the input is not internally duplicated for the purpose then the result would always be false.
 
If the gate obeys only AND logic and the input is not internally duplicated for the purpose then the result would always be false.
  
If the gate uses OR logic ''and/or'' the input is internally used for both traditionally-required inputs, then the output would be exactly of the state of the original input.
+
If the gate uses OR logic ''and/or'' the input is internally used for both traditionally-required inputs then the output would be exactly of the state of the original input.
  
The two outputs appear to be duplications (unlike Out And Not Out pairings) so the overall effect may be to act as a non-interfering 'splitter' gate.
+
The two outputs appear to be duplications (unlike Out And Not Out pairings) so the overall effect may be to act as a non-interfering 'splitter' gate.
  
Alternately, if the single input carries a superposition of two signals (see NORG XORT, below) then this might be teased apart into two inputs, internally, processed (optionally making a new superposition of AND and OR results upon the separated inputs) and propagating onwards into two different and deliberately unentangled (but possibly still each superpositonal) outputs for further quantum processing.
+
Alternately, if the single input carries a superposition of two signals (see NORG XORT, below) then this might be teased apart into two inputs, internally, processed (optionally making a new superposition of AND and OR results upon the separated inputs) and propogating onwards into two different and deliberately unentangled (but possibly still each superpositonal) outputs for further quantum processing.
  
 
(There are no NOT-type or XOR-type elements to the diagram, yet it is notable as being a partially-rearranged anagram of "XNOR Gate".)
 
(There are no NOT-type or XOR-type elements to the diagram, yet it is notable as being a partially-rearranged anagram of "XNOR Gate".)
Line 62: Line 62:
 
|Two inputs feed into an AND-style receiving end. The presumed output end features a mirrored XOR input design complete with two connections onwards.
 
|Two inputs feed into an AND-style receiving end. The presumed output end features a mirrored XOR input design complete with two connections onwards.
  
Assuming it still accepts inputs from the left and produces outputs to the right, it is possible this gate initially acts as an AND-gate to the inward pair but then (randomly?) generates output signals that would, as inputs to an XOR, produce the same output. That is, if both inputs are true then the two outputs are paired as one as true and one as false (in either order); for any other inputs both outputs are in the same and identical (not-specified) logic-state.
+
Assuming it still accepts inputs from the left and produces outputs to the right, it is possible this gate initially acts as an AND-gate to the inward pair but then (randomly?) generates output signals that would, as inputs to an XOR, produce the same output. i.e., if both inputs are true then the two outputs are paired as one as true and one as false (in either order); for any other inputs both outputs are in the same and identical (not-specified) logic-state.
  
(The name is a spoonerism of "AND Gate", but may not necessarily have any meaning beyond that.)
+
(The name is a spoonerism of "AND Gate", but may not have meaning beyond that.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|XAND Gort
 
|XAND Gort
 
|Two inputs, unconventionally, feed into what is otherwise a perfectly standard NOT-symbol with the traditional single output.
 
|Two inputs, unconventionally, feed into what is otherwise a perfectly standard NOT-symbol with the traditional single output.
  
How a single NOT is intended to handle two inputs and merge them is not obvious. All obvious functions are already met by existing two-input gates. Perhaps it is logically identical to the NOR gate, but drawn and named to express its nature as "not A and not B" rather than the less intuitive equivalent "not (A or B)".  
+
How a single NOT is intended to handle two inputs and merge them is not obvious. All obvious functions are already met by existing two-input gates. Possibly, then, this is intended to create a combined quantum superposition (also inverted) of the two singular input feeds and therefore act as a form of signal multiplexer.
  
Or possibly this is intended to create (and then invert) a combined quantum superposition of the two singular input feeds and therefore act as a form of signal multiplexer.
+
(The name seems only trivially related to the gate-named associated with the drawn elements of functionality. "Xand" is a familar form of the name "Alexander", while "Gort" is the name of a particularly powerful alien robot seen in various versions of the film The Day The Earth Stood Still. Neither of these facts may bear true relevance, however.)
 
 
(The name seems only trivially related to the gate names associated with the drawn elements of functionality. "Xand" is a familiar form of the name "Alexander" that is sometimes used for major figures in fantasy novels for its striking "X", while "Gort" is the name of a particularly powerful alien robot seen in various versions of the film The Day The Earth Stood Still. Neither of these facts may bear true relevance, however.)
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|NORG Xort
 
|NORG Xort
Line 85: Line 83:
 
|Two inputs appear to feed into an OR-receiving end-cap, but this transitions into feedlines into a follow-up XOR-receiver, which in turn transitions (without output-capping) into two output tracks each with an 'orphaned' NOT-node upon them.
 
|Two inputs appear to feed into an OR-receiving end-cap, but this transitions into feedlines into a follow-up XOR-receiver, which in turn transitions (without output-capping) into two output tracks each with an 'orphaned' NOT-node upon them.
  
Generously, it could be interpreted as an OR-gate whose internal result is sent to one output track while the opposite is output to the other track, then both are inverted. Or quantum (re-)superposition and separations may again be at work in this case in ways hard to narrow down.
+
Generously, it could be interpreted as an OR-gate whose internal result is forced to feed a False output (by dint of ''x'' XOR ''x'' behavior) which is then split and inverted into a permanent True. Or quantum (re-)superposition and separations may again be at work in this case in ways hard to narrow down.
  
(The nominal title is yet further lacking in obvious logic, starting with a possible rearrangement of XOR and AND followed by part of GATE with an N inserted. "Gant" could possibly be a reference to a particular sportswear manufacturer/retailer.  There is, of course, also the {{w|Gantt chart}}.)
+
(The nominal title is yet further lacking in obvious logic, starting with a possible rearrangement of XOR and AND, but "Gant" could possibly be a reference to a particular sportswear manufacturer/retailer.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|NORXONDOR Gorgonax
 
|NORXONDOR Gorgonax
Line 94: Line 92:
 
It is possible the peculiarly placed NOTs are acting as indications of some kind of two-way signal filter/rectifier, if they were to be taken seriously.
 
It is possible the peculiarly placed NOTs are acting as indications of some kind of two-way signal filter/rectifier, if they were to be taken seriously.
  
(The gate name, however, is a bizarre construct that may even be echoing fantasy/mythology references, such as Gondor and the Gorgon.)  
+
(The gate name, however, is a bizarre construct that may even be echoing fantasy/mythology references, such as the Gorgon.)  
 
|}
 
|}
  
The only real-life logic gate that was omitted is the XNOR gate (short for "eXclusive Not OR"; it compares the inputs, and if and only if they are equal, it outputs true). Note that the "NORG XORT" gate would be logically equivalent to it, if it were tipped to match its uniquely XOR-style tail, since it would then be an XNOR gate with NOT on both inputs, a modification that has no ultimate effect on the logic as it merely switches the case of which exclusivity it needs to be, and does not care which version of same-input it might be responding to.  
+
The only real-life logic gate that was omitted is the XNOR gate (short for "eXclusive Not OR"; it compares the inputs, and if and only if they are equal, it outputs true). Note that the "NORG XORT" gate would be logically equivalent to it if it were tipped to match its uniquely XOR-style tail, since it would then be an XNOR gate with NOT on both inputs, a modification that has no ultimate effect on the logic as it merely switches the case of which exclusivity it needs to be, and does not care which version of same-input it might be responding to.  
  
A double-NOT on an input would produce the identical output again (...if the input is '''not not''' true). Two NOTs preapplied to a (N)AND or (N)OR would produce the same output as a (further-)NOTed version of the (N)OR or (N)AND, conversely (...if '''not'''-1 '''and''' '''not'''-2 then this also means that neither 1 '''nor''' 2). Normally this would be shown, if necessary, as full NOT gates on the lead-in inputs but (see Transcript, below, and the NORG XORT description above) the shortcut element is occasionally used in further mix'n'match symbology (together with reinterpreting connectivity lines as partial shape-edges and vice-versa) in 'understandable' but definitely non-standard ways.
+
A double-NOT on an input would produce the identical output again (...if the input is '''not not''' true). Two NOTs preapplied to a (N)AND or (N)OR would produce the same output as a (further-)NOTted version of the (N)OR or (N)AND, conversely (...if '''not'''-1 '''and''' '''not'''-2 then this also means that neither 1 '''nor''' 2). Normally this would be shown, if necessary, as full NOT gates on the lead-in inputs but (see Transcript, below, and the NORG XORT description above) the shortcut element is occasionally used in further mix'n'match symbology (together with reinterpreting connectivity lines as partial shape-edges and vice-versa) in 'understandable' but definitely non-standard ways.
  
 
Along with the deliberate confusion of connector and shape-edge lines, directionality is also played with in several cases, with input 'ends' perhaps also at the (implied) output end and reversed sub-symbols implying a composite gate with substructural feedback or perhaps diode-rectification upon a bidirectional logic path.  
 
Along with the deliberate confusion of connector and shape-edge lines, directionality is also played with in several cases, with input 'ends' perhaps also at the (implied) output end and reversed sub-symbols implying a composite gate with substructural feedback or perhaps diode-rectification upon a bidirectional logic path.  
Line 106: Line 104:
 
Much like [[2360: Common Star Types]], as the list progresses, the names start to sound more like mythical creatures, closing with the "Norxondor gorgonax". As with the symbology, the names appear to be nonsensical recombinations of the standard ones (perhaps with off-subject inspirations, in some cases) but often do not match up with the symbolic (mis)use, such as an X in the name not implying/being implied by an XOR's unique drawn feature.  
 
Much like [[2360: Common Star Types]], as the list progresses, the names start to sound more like mythical creatures, closing with the "Norxondor gorgonax". As with the symbology, the names appear to be nonsensical recombinations of the standard ones (perhaps with off-subject inspirations, in some cases) but often do not match up with the symbolic (mis)use, such as an X in the name not implying/being implied by an XOR's unique drawn feature.  
  
In the title text [[Randall]] claims that in the {{w|C (programming language)|programming language C}} the {{w|multiocular O}} (ꙮ) character, an exotic glyph variant of the Cyrillic letter O, is used to represent the bitwise version of the last operator Norxondor gorgonax (presumably ꙮꙮ represents the non-bitwise version), fitting as the multiocular O is used to refer to "many-eyed {{w|seraphim}}" (angels) in some religious literature. {{w|Gorgon}}s ([https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2360:_Common_Star_Types beige] or otherwise) have heads covered with snakes instead of hair, and so possess multiple eyes, the most famous was known as {{w|Medusa}} (she was [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/e/e5/1608_1088x1074y_Medusa_and_floating_earth.png depicted] in [[1608: Hoverboard]]).  The ꙮ character abstractly inspires ideas of great otherworldly demons like those of the Cthulhu mythos.
+
In the title text [[Randall]] claims that in the {{w|C (programming language)|programming language C}} the {{w|multiocular O}} (ꙮ) character, an exotic glyph variant of the Cyrillic letter O, is used to represent the bitwise version of the last operator Norxondor gorgonax (presumably ꙮꙮ represents the non-bitwise version), fitting as the multiocular O is used to refer to "many-eyed {{w|seraphim}}" (angels) in some religious literature. {{w|Gorgon}}s (beige or otherwise) have heads covered with snakes instead of hair, and so possess multiple eyes, the most famous was known as {{w|Medusa}} (which was [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/e/e5/1608_1088x1074y_Medusa_and_floating_earth.png depicted] in [[1608: Hoverboard]]).  The ꙮ character abstractly inspires ideas of great otherworldly demons like those of the Cthulhu mythos.
  
C is a low-level programming language, and as such, it has many operations that correspond to logical (i.e. bitwise) operations.  These contrast with operations that work in a non-bitwise way.  For example, "&&" is the non-bitwise "AND" operator that takes the operands as a whole, while "&" is the bitwise "AND" that combines the respective bits of its two inputs independently before spitting out the new single composite value the output bits represent. In non-bitwise operations, 0 always represents "FALSE", while any non-zero value means "TRUE" for inputs, and 1 is used to represent TRUE for outputs.  Thus, "14 && 3" gives the result 1: TRUE AND TRUE -> TRUE.  In the bitwise operation, using the same values, the decimal value 14 has the binary value 1110 and the decimal value 3 has the binary value 0011, and for this example we get:
+
C is a low-level programming language, and as such, it has many operations that correspond to logical (i. e. bitwise) operations.  These contrast with operations that work in a non-bitwise way.  For example, "&&" is the non-bitwise "AND" operator that takes the operands as a whole, while "&" is the bitwise "AND" that combines the respective bits of its two inputs independently before spitting out the new single composite value the output bits represent. In non-bitwise operations, 0 always represents "FALSE", while any non-zero value means "TRUE" for inputs, and 1 is used to represent TRUE for outputs.  Thus, "14 && 3" gives the result 1: TRUE AND TRUE -> TRUE.  In the bitwise operation, using the same values, the decimal value 14 has the binary value 1110 and the decimal value 3 has the binary value 0011, and for this example we get:
 
   1110 = 14
 
   1110 = 14
 
  & <u>0011</u> =  3
 
  & <u>0011</u> =  3
Line 154: Line 152:
 
:[An unusual symbol. The symbol is identical to the NOR GATE, except the upper and lower horizontal parts of the symbols hull have a NOT GATE placed on them - one pointing to the left on the upper line, and to the right on the lower line. There is one output to the symbol, with a bubble attached.]
 
:[An unusual symbol. The symbol is identical to the NOR GATE, except the upper and lower horizontal parts of the symbols hull have a NOT GATE placed on them - one pointing to the left on the upper line, and to the right on the lower line. There is one output to the symbol, with a bubble attached.]
 
:NORXONDOR gorgonax
 
:NORXONDOR gorgonax
 
==Trivia==
 
 
*If you want to test out how the logic gates work, click [http://mathigon.org/polypad#logic here].
 
* There was a very famous computer programmer named Gates.
 
  
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
{{comic discussion}}

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)