Talk:Sheffer stroke

message: :Add any additional comments
*Comment - The phrase "logical NAND" is used in computer science to distinguish from "bitwise NAND".  According to Google, however, this phrase is much less common than "Sheffer stroke" used by logicians, which in turn is far less common than plain "NAND".  I think the reason the redirect exists is due to a piece of misplaced tidymindedness, namely all the boolean logic operators should be similarly named, and and and or are disambig pages, hence each must be logical something or other.  I'd be better disposed to moving this page, as well as Logical nor to NAND and NOR, though it feels wrong to me to document the non-engineering material for this topic under this title. --- Charles Stewart 20:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better, but Peirce arrow is a much less well known term than Sheffer stroke, and there is very little material at that article that doesn't fit well with the title NOR, compared to the situation with NAND.  I'm not all that bothered by this bit of untidyness. --- Charles Stewart 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: Contrary to the first paragraph, Sheffer stroke is not 'joint denial' but rather 'alternative denial'.  The joint denial of P and Q is \lnot p \land \lnot q which is equivalent to NOR.  The alternative denial of P and Q \lnot p \lor \lnot q which is equivalent to NAND (the Sheffer stroke).
Sheffer, in his paper talks about rejection as the negation of a disjunction. So not what you wrote ( i think ) but ¬(p∨q). Which by De Morgan's Law turns into ¬p∧¬q. mmick66  —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative, not joint, denial 

message: The NAND gate symbol shown in the upper-right illustration does not conform to industry standards for a NAND gate.  The straight horizontal edges should be longer.  See page three of the IEEE document http://www.ddpp.com/DDPP3_pdf/IEEEsyms.pdf .
Olmsfam 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAND symbol shape is non-standard 

message: This is the simple reason why I moved the article from Sheffer stroke to Logical nand. And after that, I did some innovative changes, but however, some people just reverted the changes and ignored the improved article!!!!!  User:203.186.238.228 
:Nonetheless the move was improperly performed.  See  WP:MOVE for the policy: in particular WP has facilities for moving pages unavailable to anonymous users: you can request page moves at WP:RM (requested moves).  What's wrong with what you did is that blanking pages by hand and copying contents spoils the connection of contributed content to the edit history, and this connection is considered important for content licensing purposes.
:Note that while NAND is a very common name for this, it is usually counted as an electronic gate, and the phrase "Logical nand" is fairly rare, according to google much rarer than Sheffer stroke. --- Charles Stewart 19:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I find this Sheffer stroke title for the article quite surprising. I have never heard of Sheffer stroke, and I studied Computer Science and Electrical Engineering for my BS. This included lots of abstract math, and I never encountered it, such that I would remember it, nor have I ever heard anyone utter that phrase. No matter what Google may say about it, I think it's a rather uncommon phrase, compared to "Logical NAND" or just NAND. Interesting, yes, but Logical NAND would be much preferable name for the article, and Sheffer and his stroke can figure prominently, of course! JoGusto 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which term is more common depends on what field you're in.  "NAND" is more common in your fields, "Sheffer stroke" is more common among logicians, both those in philosophy departments and those in math departments.  I have no opinion as to how that should affect the name of the page.  To me, the most important thing is that "Logical NAND", "NAND", and "Sheffer stroke" all take you to the same place, either directly or by redirect.  --JMRyan 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of Sheffer stroke either, but by google it's something like 10 times more popular, if i didn't divide wrong. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I came to this page when searching for NAND, I thought Wikipedia had messed up for the first time, and that it was the wrong page.  I support renaming this page as NAND.  As a senior software engineer, I have never heard of Sheffer stroke.  Todd 12:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical nand is a more common name 

message: I protected the Logical nand page due to several cut and paste move attempts recently. I will now unprotect it since it looks like it's part of a move debate. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I protected Logical nand and now this page. Whoever is putting half a gig onto these pages STOP NOW. It's so large and has so many script errors that it's literally making browsers crash. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Somebody removes links to Sheffer stroke and XNOR from the list of mathematical topics and other lists. That person using an ever-changing IP address, so it is hard to track. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misterious removals 

message: Please make an account.  Each time you contribute you use a different IP address. I counted at least five. It is a mess, and it is impossible to get in touch with you. Please make an account like everybody else and let us discuss. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the anonymous contributor 

message: * JA: It is very important to distinguish the roles of signs and symbols and so on, which are semiotic or syntactic things, from the roles of functions and operators and so on, which are formal or mathematical objects.  In particular, the Sheffer stroke, which probably should be written with quotes, as "|", in the article, is a signlike thing, which is just one of many signs that may denote the corresponding mathematical object.  Jon Awbrey 15:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between signs or symbols and functions or operators 

message: JA: The more I work on standardizing the formats across the various 2-place operators, the more it looks like it would be a service to the reader to use "Logical NAND" as the title of choice for the Sheffer stroke operation.  We can always mention the other name in the first line without much ado.  I don't really want to go through all that voting business unless there's some kind of prior con-sense among interested parties that it makes sense to do this.  So, what do folks think as of the present moment?  Jon Awbrey 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title needs changing anyway, because the topic of the article is not a symbol, it is a sentential operation. Nortexoid 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change : Sheffer Stroke → Logical NAND

message: JA: There is a set of methodolodical questions that have been boiling under the surface of the naming issues that periodically erupt here and elsewhere.  I don't think that the article-specific name-change voting format is very good way to handle these broader issues, so I think it might be good to start up a more comprehensive discussion here, and to reflect on the wider consequences of whatever policy we adopt.  Jon Awbrey 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roots of the naming issues

message: I did a big edit. I want to center around the logical operators as the key concept around which the entries are organized. There are standard sections for each of them. Everything nand related is in one place. The links to "NAND gate" will go directly to that section.
Gregbard 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big move 

message: I have been working on all of the logical operators recently. I would like to see a consistent format for them. There is a wikiproject proposal for this at:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Logical_Operators. Also see Talk:Logical connective.
I would like to see the logical, grammatical, mathematical, and computer science applications of all of the operators on the single page for each of those concepts. 
Gregbard 08:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed project 

message: This section, currently comprising the following text, makes little sense to me:
: NAND is not used in everyday sentences because it exhibits an inherent inversion, which makes it confusing like a double negative. Here's an example of a sentence using:
::NAND operator: We will surely die if we have food nand water. 
::Common terms: We will surely die if we do not have both food and water. 
::Or, by DeMorgan's Law: We will surely die if we lack either food or water.
(1) "NAND is not used in everyday sentences because..."  "NAND" not used in everyday sentences because it's not an English word.  What is really meant by this statement?
(2) It seems to me that in ordinary English, "We will surely die if we do not have both food and water" and "We will surely die if we lack either food or water" mean two different things.  The DeMorgan version is much clearer (although it would be that much more reflective of the truth table if it said, "We will surely die if we lack either food or water or both").  The "common terms" version sounds like it means that death will result only if BOTH food and water are lacking, but death will not result if food is present and water is lacking, or food is lacking and water is present.  This interpretation is no congruent with the truth table.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.31.130 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural language subsection 

message: A 19th century algebra textbook, Olney's Algebra, used the overbar as a grouping operator, equivalent to pairs of parentheses. It remains today as the horizontal stroke in a square (or other) root symbol. It's also called a vinculum.
(Off-topic, but of some interest, is that that book gave procedures for extracting cube, 5th, and 7th roots "by hand", as elaborations of the square-root procedure. However, as the order of the root increased, the procedure become progressively more elaborate, and became closer to guesswork (with more penalty for bad guesses!). 
In 1960, I was a computer technician, working with the BMEWS DIP computer, which was an all-NAND-gate machine. Needless to say, Boolean expressions describing the machine's logic required a NAND notation, and while training, we used the overbar frequently.
Around 1978, I was an associate editor at Electronic Design magazine, where we sometimes had occasion to publish Boolean expressions, and we used only the overbar. It caused our printer considerable grief, because their typesetter simply was not designed to create the symbol. Back in the 19th century, before Linotype, it was probably easier to typeset.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikevich (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "overbar" symbol 

message: Although the first table presented in the article uses the binary symbols 0 and 1, the accompanying discussion refers to truth values "true" and "false." In fact, it doesn't seem that the article ever explains how to relate the two interpretations. Thus, for example, the uninformed reader would not understand that the first table is just another version of the truth table, using a different pair of symbols. Jumping over to the NOR article for comparison, note that there the binary symbols aren't used at all. Nor are these symbols mentioned in the umbrella article on logical connectives. I think that they should be, and perhaps all the articles about logical connectives should be edited for consistency on this point. Ishboyfay (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical vs. binary interpretations 

message: I suggest undoing the edits from IP 67.190.103.219 on Nov. 10 for the following reasons:
* Spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and other grammatical errors
* Poor formatting and references (e.g. I don't think Wikipedia is allowed to cite itself).
* Digressive writing; not much coherency
But most importantly:
* It's not clear what the point is or why this content belongs here. The content seems to be about the Sheffer Stroke proof of informal logic; what is the relevance to the Sheffer Stroke/NAND logical operation?
* Snide comment about the American judicial system; verging on vandalism (already reverted)
It's either that or smother it with tags saying "Fix me, Citation needed, clarification needed, improper style etc. etc."
Rotiro (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it wasn't written in a way appropriate for this article. It has already been removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheffer Stroke Proof of Informal Logic

message: Unicode includes the negated and symbol: ⊼ (U+22BC NAND). Should we use it? 81.186.243.41 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes. ↑ (2191 UPWARDS ARROW) can't be counted upon to look like anything like a Sheffer Stroke in most fonts I've used, e.g. PragmataPro, Fira, Noto, etc. Using | (007C VERTICAL LINE) is technically better except it usually means something different in programming languages. I was so happy when I discovered ⊼ on this talk page. Jartine (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode Nand ⊼ 

message: I find the following baffling: Stamm, Edward Bronisław [in Polish] (1911). "Beitrag zur Algebra der Logik". Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik (in German). 22 (1): 137–149. doi:10.1007/BF01742795.
The puzzle is the [in Polish] remark. First, the article is obviously in German, as correctly noted after the title. Is this simply supposed to mean that Stamm himself, or his name, is Polish--a completely unnecessary remark? Or is it supposed to suggest that he used Polish notation (I'm not sure if he did, but again this is completely inappropriate to remark upon in a citation). But I'm also puzzled about how to remove it; I can't find the [in Polish] text anywhere on the editing page, so I hope someone who agrees with me that it is out of place and knows how or where this is encoded can remove it.ScottForschler (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Citation 

message: There's a lot of context to understand where the "Sheffer" comes from, but absolutely nothing explaining why it's a "stroke".
Very nearly had one [a stroke] while trying to grasp the context.
110.150.31.209 (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another comment on the naming