Talk:Exclusive or

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This article has been renamed from exclusive disjunction to exclusive or as the result of a move request.

[edit] Proposed project

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.

BTW- I am sad to see the result of the debate on naming. The primary name of the article should be "xor." In the absence of this, it should be "exclusive disjunction."

Gregbard 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're off to a bad start: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_abbreviations. Not only is "xor" an abbreviation (and not a universal one), but it conflicts with another topic. I'm not sure what you mean by "in the absense of", but if you go for the other name, you're going to bring about that fight all over again. In fact, you'll probably end up having that fight no matter what you do.
What about the logic gate page? Will you bring that in? I think I'm for that merge, because the separation seems to suggest less of a relationship than there really is. --ToobMug 10:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it seems like that ship has sailed for now. 'Exclusive or' it is. Thanks for the support on the logic gate page issue. I'd like to bring in anything that makes it a comprehensive page. I think there is the potential for a feature article of the day if we play our cards right. That goes for any one of the operators. Gregbard 10:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


One is an abstract reperesentation of a computer circuit and the other is a boolean algebra topic. Merging will cause confusion, because they are not the same thing. --Jfrascencio 00:53, 30 July 2007 (in the edit comments where the XOR gate and Exclusive or merge tags were deleted)

One is simply an electronic implementation of the other. What's to be confused about? --ToobMug 10:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to delete one and merge it completely into the other. The goal here is creating a comprehensive article on xor. We can touch on it in a section. The other article can stay where it is with an appropriate link with a {{main}} Gregbard 10:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


I am uninitiated when it comes to general Wiki-practice and the discussion page procedure, so please bare with me...

I think it is an absolute necessity to the article to have a consistent symbol set or at least an equivalencies table. Section ==Equivalencies, elimination, and introduction== starts out using undefined operators and then defines a few terms inline of the text. Then the article proceeds to define a second (and inconsistent) set of operators in Section ==Properties==. This is confusing and could be avoided by defining a consistent set of operators in Section ==Equivalencies, elimination, and introduction== or at least explain why a different operator set is in use. I am aware that depending on your discipline (Mathematics, Philosophy, Computer Science, or Electical Engineering), the operators can vary. This is more of a reason for a clear definition of oporators. Even the Logical connective artical (among others) is not clear. For example, in Computer Science “!” is sometimes used as negation along with “¬” or “~”. Is there a reason for this article organization that I am overlooking here? --Smcreator (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)