Talk:Exclusive or/Archive 1

Archive 1

Using + instead of ⊕ for Exclusive or

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)

((a XOR b) XOR a)

It be worth explicitly mentioning that given two bytes a and b, ((a XOR b) XOR a) is equal to b. In my opinion, this would aid understanding of the RAID example, and the usefulness of XOR in general. I'm a bit reluctant to do this myself since I haven't edited a page before.

English semantics

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

1. I can have my cake
2. 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 [1] 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)

Precise use of "or" in languages other than English

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)

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)

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)

Check Definition using symbols section

Please check that Definition using symbols section is correct

More than 2 operands

How is this function defined for more than 2 operands? Alex1 21:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

- The usual version is 'true of an odd number of the propositions'. So e.g. 1 or 3 out of three. Charles Matthews 21:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

- I have found a nice link to explain multiple arguments XOR - Wolfram Mathworld (author-Zbynek Chuchma):

In the meantime I found these port descriptions in the Philips data handbook, part 5: Semiconductors and integrated circuits:

• AND: the output is high if and only if all inputs are high
• NAND: the output is low if and only if all inputs are high
• OR: the output is high if and only if any one or more of the inputs are high
• NOR: the output is low if and only if any one or more of the inputs are high
• EXCLUSIVE-OR: the output is high if and only if any one input is high and all other inputs are low

This explains why it's called exclusive. It's not a parity function. Alex1 10:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, at present the page is absolutely wrong in its definition for more than two operands. It's a classic wikipediaism. --82.69.188.246 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I could be more charitable about that. It does at least have the decency to contradict itself to raise a proper degree of skepticism in the careful reader:

"The operation yields the result TRUE when one, and only one, of its operands is TRUE."

"if there are an odd number of TRUE operands, then the result will be TRUE, otherwise it will be FALSE."

• For clarity, this is the simplest disputable case:

Popular perception is that the output is 1, but [some] formal definitions have it as 0 because the input is not "any one input high and all others low". The page fails to make this clear and reinforces popular perception by restating, through various reasoning and implication, that it is 1. --ToobMug 23:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How did this get called "Exclusive Disjunction"?

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)

OK, I've renamed the article "Exclusive or". Samboy 23:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Googlefight result: 1,750,000 for "Exclusive or" vs. 16,500 for "Exclusive disjunction". Samboy 23:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• It likely comes from the mathematics community since the term "disjunction" is usually preferred over "or". Here's a MathWorld entry on it.--Tokek 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Logical inequality" is more appropriate, because OR == Disjunction, but Exclusive OR != Exclusive disjunction. In addition, it is easier to think the meaning of "Logical inequality" than "Exclusive disjunction". QQ 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi QQ, I've copied your comment below, and replied to it there. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo

I'm a little puzzled by some text in the article. Is this a typo?

("<u>∨</u>", or ''&#x22BB;'')

Should it really be

("<u>∨</u>", or ''&;#x22BB;'')

? -- 24.17.192.30 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is correct. &#x22BB; is an HTML entity referring to a unicode character at code point 0x22BB. --Liulk 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

XNAD and pals

Google searched for both {XNAD "exclusive nand"}[2] and {XNAD "exclusive not and"}[3]. Both returned only this article. Mention of XNAD first appeared: 08:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC).—Tokek

Removed XNAD for now, simply because I don't know and I can't find anything on it. "EOR" and "orr" are also questionable. No note on who/what/when/where/why it would be used, so it's hard to tell if usage has died or not.--Tokek 03:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure the assembler in BBC Basic used EOR. and the first couple of results for 6502 instruction set on google also seem to. can't say i've heared either orr or XNAD though. Plugwash 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Make that 100% sure. EOR's what it gives in my elderly "Programming the MOS Technology 6502 Microprocessor" manual from MOS Technology, and who should know if not them?

EOR's also the opcode symbol used in the ARM Assembler for the ARM Architecture (not surprising perhaps, since the original ARM design was done by Acorn, who designed the 6502-based BBC Micro); given the ARM's current prevalence in embedded systems, we really can't say that "usage has died". Kay Dekker 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with those exclamation marks !?

JA: Scanning quickly I do not see an explanation of them. Jon Awbrey 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they mean not from the context. dunno if this is a standard notation though. Plugwash 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I've seen that notation for "not" in a hardware context (Spice, etc.), but I think it's best to stick with "~" or "¬" here. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with the nbsp?

At the ==In computer science== section:

• It tells whether there are an odd number of 1&nbsp;bits (A ⊕ B ⊕ C ⊕ D ⊕ E is true iff an odd number of the variables are true).

"&nbsp;" is the HTML entity for a non-breaking space. Its usage is correct there. --Quuxplusone 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Cryptography and XOR

Apart from using as a one time pad, it can trivially be used in a secret sharing scheme. message M , = S1 xor S2 xor S3 (where S(n) is Share n) --faya

On the use of "+" for XOR

JA: Regarding a comment by Plugwash that was left on the main page:

a plus sign ("+") [!--who actually uses this? i thought a normal plus sign normally meant inclusive or!--]

JA: The use of "+" for exclusive disjunction goes back to Boole and Peirce, as this is the only thing that makes sense in a mathematical framework that places a primary value on ring and field properties. At first, Peirce and Jevons used other symbols for inclusive or, depending on the willingness of various typographers to cut new symbols, and in a pinch Peirce used a plus-and-a-comma (+,) for inclusive or. It seems to have been Schröder who started using "+" for inclusive or, and circuit engineers apparently picked it up from that line of usage. But mathematicians still use "+" in a way that only allows for the XOR reading, and since we have "∨" for inclusive or, there's no point "adding" to the confusion any longer. Jon Awbrey 19:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Nota Bene. "This article is about XOR in the logical sense. For the electronic XOR gate see XOR gate. For other uses, see XOR (disambiguation)."

JA: EE folks have their own article. This article is about the logical and mathematical usages. Jon Awbrey 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excluding information about symbology used in a particular field is not rational. Not only that, but it warrants specific mention because it's a hazard that people are likely to run into. Exclusive or is a logical operation no matter what field you work in.

Further, it seems to me that the Alternative symbols section is weighted towards making an argument for particular notations. It currently includes a whole table describing a different operation altogether, which is messy and not relevant to the section heading. --ToobMug 08:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerting first equation in "Equivalencies, elimination, and introduction" section: Equation seems a bit confusing to me because both notations are used within same equation without clear distinction on where one ends and another begins. I spent some time trying to figure out how can p+q be equal to p~q+~pq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.170.195 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re move of page to logical inequality

Earlier today QQ moved this page to logical inequality, with as far as I can tell no prior discussion. I've now moved the page back. I think we should discuss any such much here on the talk page and reach a consensus for any such move. In my opinion "exclusive disjunction" is the traditional and most common name for this concept, especially in philosophy and mathematics. For example a Google search on "exclusive disjunction" gives 23,700 hits, while a Google search on "logical inequality" gives 322 hits. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(I've copied this comment from above)

I think "Logical inequality" is more appropriate, because OR == Disjunction, but Exclusive OR != Exclusive disjunction. In addition, it is easier to think the meaning of "Logical inequality" than "Exclusive disjunction". QQ 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi QQ, wikipedia policy (see for example WP:UE) is to use the most commonly used name for a concept as the title of the article about that concept. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for external link addition

• 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)

Can you provide a direct link to the example? --Dijxtra 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course -- direct link: http://www.celtickane.com/programming/code/XOREncrypt010.cpp --Sugarskane 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move from Exclusive disjunction to Exclusive or. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm opening up the thread about whether we should name this "Exclusive or" or "Exclusive disjunction" again. WP:NC states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". There are 1,750,000 Google hits for "Exclusive or" vs. 16,500 for "Exclusive disjunction". "exclusive or" is the most common name for this operation, and does not conflict with anything else.

The last time I moved it, another editor moved it back, with no discussion on this page and no reason given except "reverting ill-advised previous move". [4] The user in question has since been banned from Wikipedia: [5]

That in mind, unless someone pipes in and can give me a good reason for continuing to call this "exclusive disjunction", I will move this article again in a couple of days. Samboy 07:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, things changed during my 10-month wikivacation and and I couldn't do the move. I have added a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves Samboy 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you oppose this move, let me (and any admin who might be looking at this after going to Wikipedia:Requested moves) know.

Here is a straw poll:

• Support As nominator. Samboy 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support OK with Samboy argumentation. French Tourist 09:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support  --Lambiam^Talk 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per Samboy. I would never have thought to look for this as "exclusive disjunction" and am surprised that its number of hits is even as large as 1% of the number for "exclusive or". Actual usage trumps grammatical correctness. —David Eppstein 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Every computer programmer knows this operation as XOR, not XDJ. DavidCBryant 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Maybe this should be at XOR. --Serge 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support linas 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support "exclusive or" (XOR too jargony) -R. S. Shaw 00:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Dominus 03:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Actually, whenever I encounter the term "disjunction", I have to think a bit to come up with the fact, that it is "or" operation. I presume, however, that Exclusive disjunction would redirect to Exclusive or page, wouldn't it? --Ruziklan 00:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. We wouldn't want to call a conjunction page 'and', however. And I think we ought to be a bit more careful about identifying 'symmetric difference' and XOR qua bit-twiddling operation. Logic is not to be identified totally with computer science usage. Charles Matthews 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It's the more common term, and I see no reason why not (I don't think I understand what Charles is trying to say). Patstuart^talk|edits 00:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

XOR in AI To Memorize List of Numbers

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)

Are you kidding me? (naming)

The function is called exclusive disjunction. Not exclusive or. What does it matter that people prefer the colloquial term? All of the other logical operation articles use conjuction/disjuction naming. Those are the terms. If you're concerned about finding the article, then just make exclusive or a redirect, but come on now we're left with a consensus-enforced misnamed article amongst a list of properly named articles. --froth^T 13:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes us look silly. This article is apparently already the subject of a lampoon by the Wikipedia Review. Farmer Kiss 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely stupid. In mathematics it is called exclusive disjunction. I don't care what the computer science term is. Disambiguate it into two separate entities if you must, but it looks completely idiotic to have a math article called exclusive or. I'm having a hard time assuming that this move was done with anything approaching , oh, verifying facts. Move it back. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it back to its proper name. Frankly, basing a naming decision on a Google search is ridiculous. Moreover, searching for `exclusive or' is misleading, since that combination of words can often be used outside of the context of logical connectives (was that sleazy tabloid article on the celebrity an exclusive or did many papers publish it?) and Google can't tell the difference. Simply adding the word `logic' to the Google search cuts the number of hits down by a half compared to the number quoted above (c. 950 000), and even then the search is not definitive.

The correct piece of terminology for a particular concept is not determined by a consensus of a dozen editors of Wikipedia. This is insane, to be quite honest, and I can see why people think that Wikipedia is a joke if decisions are regularly made like this. Rosenkreuz 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what the "official" title of the article is, because the other title will redirect to the correct one. But the universally-accepted name for the binary operation in computer science is "exclusive or"; that's why it is abbreviated XOR. This isn't "colloquial", "informal", etc. - it is the terminology used in textbooks, academic papers, etc. Try a google search for (ieee "exclusive or") to see the phrase used in professional papers. Google returns over a million hits for "exclusive or", 32000 for "exclusive disjunction" So the introductory sentence should be phrased neutrally, not claiming the "exclusive disjunction" is somehow more correct. At the least, both are extremely common ways of referring to the binary operation. CMummert · talk 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't feel very possessive about what the official name should be, although you can see which I prefer above. But I find it odd that you (Rosenkreuz) seem to feel that a consensus of one is somehow better than a consensus of a dozen, and that you took unilateral action rather than trying to broaden the base of opinions represented above. —David Eppstein 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I requested move protection for this page after it was moved twice in one day. Honestly, I don't care what the title of the article is, as I explained above, but moving the article back and forth is not a reasonable way to resolve the issue. CMummert · talk 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back because it was recently moved due to a WP:RM request. Wrong as it may be, it should not have been reversed without going back through the proper procedure at WP:RM. Anyway, I think you may all have a point, though I'll have to look into it more. Please, by all means, make another request at WP:RM, as new evidence appears to have turned up. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As before - why assume that the computer science operation XOR is the full scope of the article? The logical operation is prior to its implementation on bits. Charles Matthews 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but we can't argue about it until we go back through the WP:RM process again. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this flames about naming are very confuse, but, some consistence may arise. I think that the naming convention should follow the logical approach of the article. Put on an algebraic fashion, XOR (or Exclusive or) fits better since that the mathematical symbol to represent the operation relates the operands and the outcome, what logically simplifies the stetement (since that disjunction is not so ubuquitous as a simple or). Anyway, the mathematical terminology already defines exclusive disjunction as the name of the operation that results true if, and only if, only one of the operands is true. I think that both should be used, as if both names points to se same place. P.S.: I readed a lot of 'I'm a computer scoentist... I'm a mathematician...'. Bulshit. Everybody here can read and discuss the subject, stop this kids. Just to remember, I'm a physicist.

Mauricio Mauad - 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm responding to the RFC request. From my experience in electrical engineering, physics and math, I have more frequently come across the term "exclusive or" (or more commonly still "xor") than "exclusive conjunction". In general, I have come across "and" and "or" more than "conjunction" and "disjunction". It is my general viewpoint that this is probably the correct name given my experience. Also, I found the claims about the google search to be quite compelling. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, by that reasoning, the article on logical conjunction should be titled "And", the article on ordinary disjunction should be titled "Or", and so on. Also, if you consider the number of Google hits compelling, then consider the following pages that result from an exact phrase search on "exclusive or":

1. Should I Be Exclusive or Non-Exclusive?
2. Exclusive or Shared Competence in the Common Commercial Policy
3. Exclusive- or Preferential-Use Lanes for High Occupancy Vehicles
4. Exclusive Or -- from Wolfram MathWorld. Redirects to XOR, which has "exclusive or" in scare quotes, then links to the main article on the subject at Exclusive Disjunction.

There are many, many hits of this kind. Brought Forth 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the word "and" the word "not" and the word "or" are all used very frequently in reference to subjects besides the logical operations. I have only heard the phrase "exclusive or" referring to logical operations, except when it comes to semantic flukes such as the ones you've cited. CKnapp 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw out that at the time of me writing this, "exclusive and" brings in 1.3mil results where as "exclusive or" only brings in 1.1mil. In other words, I'm not sure that google is a good means of measuring... that said, I'm with the exclusive or crowd =p Themania 11:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is completely insane. Every other logic article is titled with either "conjunction" or "disjunction" as they should be. In the opening line of this article is even lists "exclusive or" as a secondary definition, and then links to the broader article titled "logical disjunction" not "logical or." If we actually, unbelievably, going to leave the article as "exclusive or," I think we should stick a source ref after the function name in the first line and add a source at the bottom of the page called "google said so"

This whole discussion just goes to show that the ignorant majority can be flatly, unquestionably, wrong and still zerg-rush their opinions into becoming "facts" in articles. I'm washing my hands of this asinine bullshit and in the future, when I'm doing research, I'm going to take the extra moment to go look things up in Britannica to know I'm getting correct information. I've always been a staunch defender of Wikipedia's accuracy, but after this, I believe we fully deserve the mocking that others give us. This is an embarrassment. 65.81.132.252 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that almost all references are to "exclusive or" and not to "exclusive disjunction", I support leaving this page where it is (or moving to xor, perhaps). CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The users who tout that "every other logic article is titled with ..." may be surprised to learn that this is considered an undersight. These titles do make sense within selected literature from philosphy, but you will not find these names in the forefront of main-stream mathematical literature. A disambiguation page for equivalent "logic" terminology is highly recommended. Richard B. Frost 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol explanations please

Look at this image:

${\begin{matrix}p+q&=&(p\land \lnot q)&\lor &(\lnot p\land q)\\\\&=&(p\lor q)&\land &(\lnot p\lor \lnot q)\\\\&=&(p\lor q)&\land &\lnot (p\land q)\end{matrix}}$

What does the $\land$, $\lor$ and $\lnot$ do?

Jobro 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

$\land$ = logical conjunction ("and")

$\lor$ = logical disjunction ("or")

$\lnot$ = logical negation ("not")

On a related note, the reason why the term "exclusive disjunction" is just slightly preferable to "exclusive or" in technical discussion is the same reason that we use "disjunction" instead of "or" as the name of the parallel article. It has to do with the very important distinction between "use" and "mention". In other words, the term "disjunction" is the name of a concept, or some would say a mathematical object or a logical operator, while "or" is the English word that we use in certain contexts when we want to apply this concept, object, or operator. A like consideration applies to the more conceptual term "exclusive disjunction" versus the more linguistic term "exclusive or". The conceptual term is better in this context, even though we all use the linguistic term in informal talk. Way of Inquiry 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jobro, you may want to see the page on Boolean Algebra CKnapp 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions or definitions

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).

The main thing is that a user who says "I have never heard the phrase Exclusive Disjunction. Samboy 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)" has wasted the time and energy of those who do have a minimal acquaintance with the subject of logic and those who do have the experience to understand the uses and benefits of appropriate technical terminology, especially with regard to placing one topic in the proper relationship to a large number of related topics. All of these considerations being complete no-brainers, of course. Santiago Saint James 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection and naming

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)

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)

Naming comment

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)

Everyone is laughing at you

... 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)

This article should totally be named 0110, it is the most correct name ever. Everyone knows that. Jfredett 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

um... It should be:
01
10
to be absolutely correct. Obviously you have no EE experience, thanks for wasting our time. :) CKnapp 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On thought, I prefer ≠ as the "proper" title of this article. — Xiong熊talk* 13:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should be called "I am right and you are wrong"... or possibly "You are wrong and I am right". Or the two phrases could be combined with some kind of commutative binary operation that shows only the differences between the two bitpatterns, thus ensuring that neither has any distinguishable precedence over the other.

That and "exclusive" starts with an E, so it should be called EOR. Learn to spell, losers! --ToobMug 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

QUITE ASIDE from the naming controversy...

Okay, just trying to condense some potentially excessive wording here.

'Exclusive disjunction[1], also called exclusive or, and generally symbolized by XOR or EOR, is a logical operation on two operands that results in a logical value of true if and only if exactly one of the operands has a value of true.'

Does the word 'exactly' in 'if and only if exactly one' serve any semantic purpose in that sentence? That is, can it safely be removed? -Toptomcat 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because... the OR operation is the logical operation on two operands that results in a logical value of true if and only if one of the operands has a value of true. But I think the lead sentence would be better if it were rewritten as several sentences. CMummert · talk 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Slight elaboration:

inclusive disjunction: (at least) one operand holds

Examples: 1∨1, 0∨1, 0∨0∨1, 1∨0∨1

exclusive disjunction: exactly one operand holds

Examples: 0∨1, 0∨1∨0

Which is all to say: Yes, it makes a difference.19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)