Talk:Disjunctive normal form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	Stub Class	Low Priority	Field: Foundations, logic, and set theory
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Geometry guy 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bad grammar 2 incomplete definition? 3 History 4 WikiProject class rating

[edit] Bad grammar

The grammar given at the end of the article is incorrect. Specifically:

conjunct -> term conjunct -> ( conjunct and term )

needs to be rewritten as

conjunct_clause -> literal conjunct_clause -> conjunct_clause and term conjunct -> literal conjunct -> ( conjunct_clause )

...although as a matter of convention, conjunction has higher precedence than disjunction, and therefore DNF expressions need never use brackets.

[edit] incomplete definition?

I was taught that DNF was more than simply a sum of products. I was taught that each clause of products must contain every literal - thus making every equivelant function expand to the *same* DNF form (in other words, equivalent DNF forms do not exist, there is one per independant function). Please let me know if we should include this in the definition. Fresheneesz 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Who introduced the use of DNF? Where are the early references to it in research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kpturvey (talk • contribs) 15:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

It currently talks about a disjunction of clauses. Following the link of 'clauses' tells us that a clause is a disjunction of literals. So obviously this is wrong. It should be 'a disjunction of terms'. Indeed, a few lines lower it indeed mentions terms. Whoever is willing - please fix it. Thanks, Ofer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.247.49 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)