Talk:Exclusive or/Archive 1

message: It might be useful to mention the information that + in electrical engineering is used for the logical disjunction, yet the ⊕ is the only common symbol. The two articles imply the + is only used for the exclusive disjunction. Furthermore I believe this article should ideed be named Exclusive OR again, and the equivalent articles for the other documented logical operators should be renamed accordingly.
I feel that this point should be made much more clear in the article. I was extremely confused until I finally found the lone sentence this is mentioned in. I am in both EE and Discrete Math courses right now and both of my text books and   both of my profs use "+" for logical disjunction and "⊕" for exclusive OR (note that these two classes do use two different syntaxes, EE and mathematical, but both use "+" for logical disjunction).
:In algebra, if you consider boolean as the group \mathbb{Z}_2 = \left\{ 0, 1 \right\}, then addition modulo 2 is exactly exclusive OR, and multiplication modulo 2 is logical conjunction. --Liulk 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using + instead of &oplus; for Exclusive or

message: The article says:
:"Exclusive disjunction is the sense of the word or as in the proverb you can have your cake or eat it (but not both)."
I would argue that this is not true, because xor does not allow one to infer either disjunct from the disjunction. In the example, I can infer both
# I can have my cake
# I can eat my cake
which is not supported by the definition of exclusive disjunction. In other words, if the meaning in the proverb were really the exclusive disjunction, it would follow that I had permission to take one of the two actions, but you wouldn't tell me which. Please see e.g. the course notes at  for a more detailed explanation.
-- Wmahan. 19:23, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
:I think you're confusing classical logic with boolean algebra. The notion of exclusive or, as you pointed out, is not sound under classical logic. However, linear logic has the notion of additive disjunction that enforces the exclusiveness of the choices. Either way, we're not interested in inference when we talk about boolean algebra. --Liulk 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English semantics 

message: The articles mentions that some other languages have greater precision in the use of "or".  Does anyone have more detailed information on this that can go in the article?  ElBenevolente 21:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Latin - aut, utrum, vel. Someone who didn't flunk in Latin fill in the specific meanings of each. ;-) In German, you start the sentence with "entweder" to make clear a later "oder" (or) is meant in the exclusive sense. DevSolar 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the best of my knowledge, this isn't really true -- I'vve read critiques that gave many examples from classical authors showing that aut and vel were used interchangeably, and that there was no real basis for the 'myth' of exclusive vs. inclusive.  Unless I see something indicating otherwise, I think I'll remove the statement from the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise use of "or" in languages other than English 

message: How did this get called "Exclusive Disjunction"?  It's called "Exclusive Or" in real life; I have never heard the phrase "Exclusive Disjunction". Samboy 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've renamed the article "Exclusive or".  Samboy 23:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Googlefight result: 1,750,000 for "Exclusive or" vs. 16,500 for "Exclusive disjunction". Samboy 23:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi QQ, I've copied your comment below, and replied to it there. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did this get called "Exclusive Disjunction"? 

message: I'm a little puzzled by some text in the article. Is this a typo?
:("∨", or ⊻)
Should it really be
:("∨", or &;#x22BB;)
? 
-- 24.17.192.30 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct. ⊻ is an HTML entity referring to a unicode character at code point 0x22BB. --Liulk 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: JA: Scanning quickly I do not see an explanation of them.  Jon Awbrey 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they mean not from the context. dunno if this is a standard notation though. Plugwash 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the deal with those exclamation marks !? 

message: At the ==In computer science== section:
*It tells whether there are an odd number of 1 bits (A ⊕ B ⊕ C ⊕ D ⊕ E is true iff an odd number of the variables are true).
:" " is the HTML entity for a non-breaking space. Its usage is correct there. --Quuxplusone 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to prevent breaking "1" and "bit" into two separate lines of a paragraph, which makes the text slightly more difficult to read. This is a minor typography improvement. --Liulk 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the nbsp? 

message: * I would like to make a formal request to add http://www.celtickane.com/programming/ to the external links section of this page.  It is my own website, so I wouldn't like to add it myself, but I would prefer that someone else review the website, and make the decision to add it.  It contains an example of XOR encryption in C++. --Sugarskane 03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a direct link to the example? --Dijxtra 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course -- direct link: http://www.celtickane.com/programming/code/XOREncrypt010.cpp  --Sugarskane 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for external link addition 

message: I once read in an AI text that there is an algorythm that uses the XOR that allows an infinite number of numbers to be "memorized" into a single number - that is: a number can be integrated into the value and later tested to see if it was one of the numbers previously memorized. Does anyone know what I am talking about? It might be nice to include this feature in the text of the entry for XOR.
:Maybe you mean something like bit array? —David Eppstein 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XOR in AI To Memorize List of Numbers 

message: It seems that the operation is an "exclusive disjunction", or rather is defined as an "exclusive disjunction", Yet the common english name for that operation is "exclusive or" or "XOR". "Exclusive or" as a phrase is a description by which people refer to the mathematically defined action "exclusive disjunction".
The name "Exclusive Disjunction" is proper, but the description "Exclusive or" is more easily understood and more commonly used. Of course, one of the wonders of Wikipedia is that someone looking for a page can get there in more then one way, entering the colloquial, descriptive or proper. I haven't looked, but if as stated previously the other logical operators use disjunction and conjunction as their names then it makes very little sense not to do the same here. May I add that I personally would never use the term exclusive disjunction to describe this logical operation, but I recognise it as the correct name and mathematical definition of that operation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.129.200 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptions or definitions 

message: I can't believe this page is protected. Just like the logical disjunction and logical conjunction, exclusive disjunction should be the title of this page. Its the first name given in the intro, so obviously people know its the most proper name for it. Personally, I don't care what the article is named, but to keep with wikipedia norms, lets move it and be done with it. Fresheneesz 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP norm is to discuss what the title should be and come to consensus, which has not happened here, yet.  Apparently there are strong feelings each way, and the page was being moved back and forth, which is why it is now protected from moves. I hope that you did not discover it was protected because you tried to move it... If you look higher on this page you can find the discussions about what various people think the title should be. CMummert · talk 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection and naming 

message: I think there's one fundamental issue that my cursory read on this talk page has revealed: the "exclusive disjunction" is a mathematic/logic/philosophy term while "exclusive OR" is a comp sci/engineering term.  Same concept, different fields.  Heck, math and comp sci even different symbols for the same operators.
I have long disliked how the logical operators are presented here.  Having exlusive or/disjunction and XOR gate seemed rather strange.  I propose that the content be split into two articles (names are superfluous for the moment): one on the philosophical term and one on the technical term.  Optionally merge XOR gate into the latter article.  Cburnett 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming comment 

message: ... and there's no wonder. Can anyone tell me why it matters what this article's title may be? Cure for cancer? Whatever the "real" title, every possible variation will be a redirect. Nobody will be lost in the woods -- not if any sanity prevails. 
I say this is a fight over who is more important/senior/right -- mathematicians or engineers. Worse, both armed camps are thinking in boolean terms, so one must be right and one must be wrong. This sort of thing is why Letterman and Colbert are pissing all over you. 
I say, change the article title to 0110. Change all similar articles, if you like. Redirect freely. Stop fighting like gradeschoolers over their moms. 
— Xiong熊talk* 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone is laughing at you