Lol this would be "You SHALL NOT pass, if BOTH of you passes, otherwise you SHALL PASS as long as one of you DOES NOT"
...which looking back, is actually written more succinctly by the top comment
âŚwhich double edit, my comment does identify the limitations of two parties as opposed to a potential of âyouâ being more than two. so maybe the top comment isnât perfect, idk, itâs been a long Sunday
Lol this gets into the weirdness of my comment and the parent which is that you canât deal in multiples in a binary gate and English is very vague about if âyouâ is one or multiple
17 Comments
DaddleDew@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 361d
ONLY ONE OF YOU SHALL PASS!
dunz@feddit.nu · 13 pts · 361d
That's a NOR-gate. 'NONE or all of you SHALL PASS' would be correct, which is even dumber than NORdalf đ
fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net · 12 pts · 361d
No, NOR is ânone of you shall passâ
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 361d
Itâs the NORway.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 361d
That's a NAND gate (back is flat like the AND, front has the little ball on the output to indicate it's negated). The back of the OR/NOR is curvy.
AND is "Only together shall ye pass" hence NAND is "None or at most one shall pass" (which are the other logical options).
As other pointed out what you're describing is the negation of a XOR (which is "no more and no less than one shall pass"), i.e. XNOR.
OR would be "One or both shall pass" hence NOR would be "None shall pass".
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz · 7 pts · 361d
That's XNOR
kautau@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 361d
Lol this would be "You SHALL NOT pass, if BOTH of you passes, otherwise you SHALL PASS as long as one of you DOES NOT"
...which looking back, is actually written more succinctly by the top comment
âŚwhich double edit, my comment does identify the limitations of two parties as opposed to a potential of âyouâ being more than two. so maybe the top comment isnât perfect, idk, itâs been a long Sunday
DonPiano@feddit.org · 2 pts · 360d
Less than all of you shall pass?
kautau@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 360d
Lol this gets into the weirdness of my comment and the parent which is that you canât deal in multiples in a binary gate and English is very vague about if âyouâ is one or multiple
perishthethought@piefed.social · 17 pts · 361d
I know juuuuust enough boolean logic to get this.
dunz@feddit.nu · 7 pts · 361d
I know quite a bit, it's still funnyđ
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 361d
555
(In Thai 5 is ha so its common to text 555 for hahaha, and also 555 timer ref, niche joke but hey im day drinking )
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 361d
11
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 361d
I saw the title first and thought it was gonna be about flatbread or British grandmothers đ
perishthethought@piefed.social · 3 pts · 361d
That would Naandalf (AI is really something, eh?)
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 361d
About time I saw a decent slop. Naan approved
_druid@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 361d
The universal gate? Primitive? As essential as carbon, I'd say.