Talk:Two-element Boolean algebra Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two-element_Boolean_algebra

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philip Meguire, 22.10.05: I have rewritten this at some length. To understand my interest on this topic, see the references to Laws of Form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.160.61 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this "carrier" terminology come from? The standard term would be "universe", if you're thinking of a BA as a model of a theory. If it's Laws of Form stuff, I'm not too excited about keeping that around. --Trovatore 16:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Carrier" is relatively standard terminology. [1] [2] I don't know if it is

Personally I like it because it's short and descriptive. "Underlying set" is similarly descriptive, but a bit too clumsy to be used all the time. "Universe" is also short and descriptive, but descriptive in the wrong way. It comes with connotations of something huge that cannot be changed. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that somebody used . just because of inability to input the middle dot · (TeX: ${\displaystyle \cdot }$) character, which is used sometimes as a multiplication sign. May I replace full stops with middle dots? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We already have lots of different notations for AND and OR. We don't need additional diversity in how multiplicative notation is displayed. Hans Adler 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally strives for uniformity in notation between articles. Either the many other articles on Boolean algebra should switch to the + . notation, or this one should switch to the ∧ ∨ notation. I would be in favor of the latter. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From the 4 numbered properties listed using concatenation and complementation, it appears that "concatenation" in this context is the OR operation. Is this correct?
• From what I understand, 2 element Boolean algebra can be represented with a single binary operation (either NAND or NOR) without complementation. If this is correct, I'd like to reword "We only need one binary operation..." since it is introducing a notation that uses one binary operation plus complementation, rather than only a binary operation.

--Wikimedes (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]