Talk:Boolean algebra (logic)

message: [Added on 9/24/2007]  The second replacement has now happened and seems to have generated no controversy after two months, except for the "brick wall of text" remark below, with which I fully agree and may try to do something about at some point by breaking up paragraphs and supplying lots of diagrams and pictures.  The rest of this talk page deals with the first replacement---since it all refers to a now historic article it may as well be archived appropriately in its entirety.  Since I'm likely to break something attempting that, would someone good at archiving who agrees with this please do the honors?  Thanks.  --Vaughan Pratt 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have archived the old content on the Boolean logic talk archive page here: Talk:Boolean algebra (logic)/Archive 1. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has been replaced

message: :This article is a brick-wall of text, would be nice to see some more air and use of figures 148.122.181.240 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion to collect the laws in one place seemed reasonable so I did that just now.  Is the article still completely unreadable now?  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

text: What audio article?  On Wikipedia or somewhere else?  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes

message: : Perhaps someone didn't understand how to do a merjer. Here's the process:
1. Pick whichever article has the better name. In this case, I would say it's the
   article specifying "elementary".
2. Ensure that this is the superior article in content, too.
3. Replace the inferior article with a redirection to the superior article.
   (The redirection might work if you simply insert it, but I've never tried that).
Brewhaha@edmc.net 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD discussion

message: Please see talk:Boolean algebra#Revisiting naming (my proposal there affects this article also). --Trovatore 23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting naming 

message: The promised merge has happened.  Feedback from "those who use Boolean applications in electronics and computers, and those taking classes in Boolean logic in school" (the target audience of the old version as per User:StuRat) would be helpful both to make sure the merge wasn't a step backwards and to make whatever improvements those audiences might benefit from.  For example are there clear boundaries between parts that could usefully be spun off as separate articles serving different audiences, or are the different audiences served by the article happy to browse around to find the bits most relevant to them? --Vaughan Pratt 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have tried contacting me on my talk page.  This merge completely destroyed the original intent of creating an article about Boolean Logic, as taught in middle and high school, and used extensively in computer science and electronics.  This article was meant to be accessible to a general audience, but has now been changed back into a PhD-only article, much like the original Boolean algebra.  We now have two PhD-only articles and nothing aimed at anyone else.  I will recreate the original article under the name Boolean logic. StuRat 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you believe your article is understandable by anyone is because you wrote it.  This is a common error in exposition and leads to articles that are understandable by only one person.  Your article currently violates WP:OWN as well as WP:FORK, see Talk:Boolean logic#Problematic_article. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The reason you believe your article is understandable by anyone is because you wrote it. This is a common error in exposition..." (Pratt, 16 January 2010) This is in fact not the case. What you have stated as the reasoning behind interpretability is actually a clear example of the introduction of the universal quantifier. Boolean logic should have a separate page that serves as an easier read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.119.170 (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized what the problem is.  Boolean algebra is currently organized as an introductory article, namely Boolean algebra (introduction), followed by separate articles treating Boolean algebra (logic) and Boolean algebra (structure) in depth for those who've mastered the introduction.  Those complaining about impenetrability should not have been led to this article as the first one to read on the subject.  I'll redo the merge that was undone in 2007 but this time redirect Boolean logic to Boolean algebra (introduction), including moving the merge tag on this article to Boolean algebra (introduction).  See Talk:Boolean_logic for the relevant discussion. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge complete

message: I've moved the two applications subsections (under respectively Values and Operations) to Boolean algebra (introduction) where they have combined to form its applications section at the end.  There is still much overlap between these two articles.  The main items in this article not covered by Boolean algebra (introduction) are the sections on derivations and soundness/completeness, and perhaps some of the material on the ring basis and related topics.  Suggestions for how to continue and organize this cutting-back process for this article solicited.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving stuff out

message: for easier reading and navigation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.3.139.2 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, make formulas stand out ... 

message: For whatever reason, many of the symbols used to describe formulae are showing as a square. Does anyone know what language pack is needed to display them properly?
Oorang (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an easy question; I guess you need to provide much more information if you want help, and even then you need to be lucky that someone had the same problem and (consciously!) solved it. E.g. on my computer (under Windows) I have installed lots of fonts, and Firefox displays every Wikipedia page correctly, but for some reason Internet Explorer has trouble with many. But on this article even my Internet Explorer displays everything just fine. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You probably just need to choose a default browser font that has better Unicode support.  Math symbols are not a language. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When reporting this behavior, please specify the operating system (Windows 7, Mac OS X 10.6.4, Fedora 12, Ubuntu 10.04, Debian 5.0.5, whatever) and browser (IE8, Firefox 3.6.3, Chrome 5.0.375.70, Opera 10.60, whatever) you're using. This will be very helpful in diagnosing the problem.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Pack? 

message: The Inkscape article links here when talking about boolean operations on paths. The idea is for example that, given paths p and q, containing the (sets of) points P and Q respectively, "p OR q" is defined as r such that (its set of points) "R = P UNION Q". While this may seem intuitive to us, the article doesn't mention this and I think that maybe it isn't very informative for people coming here from the Inkscape article. I'm also unsure whether such a thing should be included here, or perhaps on one of the articles on set theory or perhaps in its own article. Your thoughts? Shinobu (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paths 

message: Lots of the symbols don't work and are just throwing up squares.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.31.40 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Language pack" section above.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Symbols 

message: From the article: "Two Boolean laws having no numeric counterpart are the laws characterizing logical negation, namely x ∧ ¬x = 0 and x ∨ ¬x = 1."
How about x + -x = 0 and x * x^-1 = 1, respectively? 84.209.121.30 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The catch is that the numeric counterpart of Boolean negation ¬x is not numerical negation −x but the operation 1−x.  Numerical negation doesn't satisfy De Morgan's laws, for example.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogy with arithmetic 

message: There is a merge proposal regarding this page. Please see Talk:Boolean_algebra#Merge_October_2012 and comment there. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge October 2012