747
Trick XOR Treat (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Definitely a repost, but it fits the season

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

NOT Trick AND Treat

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    how would that be different than Trick NAND treat?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    "(!Trick) && Treat" is probably the binding they meant

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Or to simplify, Treat NOT Trick?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yes, but I saw changing the order of them as non-compliant with the meme. I could have added a parenthesis but that also felt too technical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Is there a standard order of operations for boolean logic, such as PEMDAS is for arithmetic?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's an interesting question, and I'm gonna go learn the answer.

    duckduckgo powers activate!

    So yes, they do. It generally goes NOT, AND, OR. And if you're doing algebra in binary and you've got boolean operators in there (you can AND two numbers the same way you can ADD two numbers in binary) PEMDAS becomes PEMDASNAO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nice, so my gut feeling about not needing the parenthesis above was right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I store-brand googled it, so I feel I'm not an authority to say one way or another!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's a reasonable convention that matches the common DNF (disjunctive normal form) of propositional logic, can confirm it's the right read.

    I'd still probably use parentheses for the ∧ (and/conjunction), though I'd never bother with it for ¬ (negation)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent