Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Wizardry and Steamworks"

Revision as of 10:26, 28 November 2011

3-Term Logical Disjunction Using Vectors

I'm a bit confused why there is so much extra logic in the Universal NOR, the following gives the same value to Q. <lsl>integer Q = !((integer)I.x || (integer)I.y || (integer)I.z); //or even integer Q = !(integer)(I * I);//this is a cheat and computationally more expensive but oh so elegant.</lsl> -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 26 November 2011 (PST)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 integer Q = !(integer)(I * I);//this is a cheat and computationally more expensive but oh so elegant.</lsl>
 -- '''[[User:Strife_Onizuka|Strife]]''' <sup><small>([[User talk:Strife_Onizuka|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Strife_Onizuka|contribs]])</small></sup> 23:19, 26 November 2011 (PST)
-<del>
-Nice one (added to main page), thanks! The idea was that by using the using the decomposition on x, y and z you may cancel any of them out (when computing Q, instead of modifying the original inputs which may be user-supplied) and turn the gate into a 2-input gate. Didn't get to play much with them but there's more that could be done based on using vectors to represent 3-input gates. Originally I wanted to add all the possible derivable gates based on NOR to the wiki page as well but, the idea suffices I think (for now).
-Kira Komarov 08:06, 27 November 2011 (PST)
-</del>
-No ty, I'm a bit confused now about what you are constantly on about when you mention parsing an event, or parsing a state - you mean it builds parse trees out of them? That's funny. Thanks, we'll figure out ourselves how computationally expensive our own stuff is.

Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Wizardry and Steamworks"

Revision as of 10:26, 28 November 2011

3-Term Logical Disjunction Using Vectors

Navigation menu

Search