h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Logic Conventions - A1281098
Author: OldHairy - U241325

I hope I have picked up all relevant guide entries.

(First attempt ever at peer review)

Great first attempt! Most new researchers don't come near this proficiency in GuideML

I feel you've explained this well, but after having read it, and having no prior knowledge of the subject, I'm not sure what I've read, honestly. An entry on this subject ought to be at least a bit accessible to people like me. You sort of dive right in, like part of a text book all out of context. Could you give something more of an introduction or background info? For instance, I don't know what the Boolean variable is

Again, great attempt!

I rather thought that anyone wanting to read this would have some knowledge of electronic logic.

Boolean Algebra is sort of explained in Everthing->Sci & Tech->Computers.

Thought the entry would ideally fit under an electronics heading, but surprised to be unable to find one.

Thanks for your quick response. I know the subject is rather turgid, but could not think of a good way to lighten it up. If I expand the explanations, that which is already a bit long gets longer.

But would be willing to bow to further advice. In meanwhile, musing further on your first post. And thanks again.

I understand completely if you don't want to change it I'm asking for something similar in one of my entries

It's not that I won't change. I am trying to write something simpler, this is only work in progress, but see A1172710. It takes a much more readable approach, but then I get severely hampered by lack of things to refer to in the guide, and that one is stuck. It probably is much more along the lines you are suggesting. Other works in progress on logic topics are A1238889 and A1269894, which apart from converting from plain text, are more or less finished, and also very technical. I guess you are looking for something more like A1172710. I really need a technical entry about logic conventions so that I can easily explain why, in general articles, I refrain from more popular notations and stick with "true" and "false" throughout A1238889 and A1269894.

I have given your comments some further thought, and wonder whether changing the introduction would suffice. Instead of

"This entry shows that the conventions used almost exclusively today to describe electronic logic devices do have an alternative. If used appropriately, this yields a duality of function for such devices. The entry also attempts to shed some light on curious artefacts of the other convention, which persist to the present day"

what about the rather less formal

"This entry examines the use of an alternative logic convention when electronic logic devices are used in applications. The question becomes that if the rules of logic are stood on their head, how does this change the application of such devices. It shows that the answer is the dual function of the device. It gives a historical account of the rise and fall of this other convention, and tries to explain why some artefacts persist to the present day."

It obviously would need a complete re-working to adjust all of entry in this way, and might scarcely be possible in many places.

Thanks for your attention anyway.

Hi OldHairy!

I've read your entry. First off, I think only an electronic engineer will read this. I don't think it is suitable as it is written for a non-technical reader. I think the title of the entry should be 'Electronic Logic Conventions' to reflect this.

Your wordy style is a joy to read in conversation but it gets in the way somewhat in a technical entry. I'm the opposite extreme, often being criticised for being 'too straightforward', but my style seems to go down well on h2g2. Bear this in mind in the rest of my comments.

Introduction

You mention three conventional ways of representing the two states: 0 and 1, true and false, and high and low. You say of high and low, 'they have the advantage that the first letter differentiates them', suggesting that this is not the case for true and false, or 0 and 1. I'm not sure what you meant to say - if high and low have and advantage, it must be an advantage over something, but what is not clear.

Choice of Convention

The first sentence here is very clumsy. Rephrase it.

'In fact, should you disagree ...' - this is an unnecessary complication which will serve only to confuse. I suggest you remove it.

Effect of Convention Change

Use a hyphen in 'two-input' to make it read better.

Footnote 1

The phrase 'current sinking logic devices' is confusing because 'current' can mean 'at the present time'. I suggest you reword it as 'logic devices which use current sinks'.

Hi, Gnomon.

I'll deal with the points you raise in the order you gave them.

Spot on about the title, and the audience. Your title 'Electronic Logic Conventions' is much better, and will be used.

The comment about wordiness is also welcome. I actually chopped lots out of the first draft to get it where it is now. Jodan liked generally liked it, so is further condensation is really needed? I fear that could make it more opaque.

Of 'they have the advantage that the first letter differentiates them', I plead this is an accident of the chopping I did. Originally I had more examples, which included "On/Off" (and which still is used later in the piece). If I change that paragraph to "However, another notation is popular in the specifications of electronic devices, using the names and , suggestive of the signal levels involved, and handily abbreviating to and ." (where <> denotes italicisation), would that be better in both meaning and style?

The first sentence in Choice of Convention IS ghastly, and I hated the repetition in it as I wrote it.

'In fact, should you disagree ...' IS an unnecessary complication, consider it gone.

Apropos the last two points, if the first paragraph became "It is an almost universal usage to take and as equivalent, with and then also equivalent. Perhaps and have a negative connotation, whereas and are more positive, but anyway both the digits and the words are merely abstract ideas." would that be better? And should the next paragraph follow on without break?


Use a hyphen in 'two-input'. I will - never know what to do with this myself.

Not sure that your Footnote 1 distinguishes electrical current from temporal current any more than mine. The technology I'm referring to here is definitely 'current sinking logic'. Perhaps the intended audience (with the new title) would assume electrical current.

(OH goes to joke mode)

This footnote has the flavour . Sparks only aspire to being electronics engineers. Hair gets very ruffled if challenged on technical content, but I totally agree my writing needs righting.

(OH goes newbie, and blushes)

What is the accepted way to make changes. Create a copy which inclues the revisions, or alter the original. I think submitting for review makes a copy, but unsure on that. Blush more.

Thanks again.

Alter the original as much as you like, then post a comment here to let us know what you've done. We'll have a look and see do we like it or not.

Amended as described in postings 6 and 8.

Footnote 1 also slightly amended, so that orginally "current sinking devices are known" is now "current sinking devices were once known" and originally "16 bit" is now "16-bit".

Added an "Acknowledgements" subheading and paragraph at the end. This paragraph is merely a prototype, to be amended to contain links, and to extend the credits as more comments are received.

I have the original held offline if it is required.

Thaks for your help so far.

I can see that you've changed the footnote, but there is no sign of any Acknowledgements section.

I'd suggest that you don't bother with an acknowledgements section, as there is no way of coping with it in h2g2. If you get so much help from another researcher that you feel it is no longer your entry but a joint entry, then you can add them to the researchers list, but that would make them a joint author of the entry. Authors are listed in the order they joined h2g2, so just about anybody would be listed before you as the author of the piece. SO I suggest you hold onto this as your own work. You can thank us here in Peer REview and that is quite enough.

Hi Gnomon.


Sorry about the acknowlegements section. I edited in bits, tending to preview-update-edit. Must have left out last update. Sorry. You suggest not to do it anyway, so I'll just not put it in now.

I pulled out copies of postings into Notepad and printed them to help with the updates. I pulled out entry (GuideML) into Word to print it, but result was just useable, not wonderful. Any tips on this?

Thanks again

OH

Can you not print the entry by clicking the Print button in your browser?

Hello Gnomon.

I overlooked the obvious with print button, but have never been moved to print straight off the net before.

Does this entry now look complete. If so, I'll forget it until rejection.

Regards, OH.

There is no rejection in Peer Review. Either it will be picked or it will sit there.

It looks good, by the way!

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Well done!

Hello Jodan

Thanks.

OH (really chuffed)