Talk:And-inverter graph

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

Electronics Low‑importance Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup?

This article could use a little bit of help. The first paragraph seems to be a contradiction; the first sentence describes a network, while the second describes the circuit being used as a data structure--which doesn't make sense, as a data structure is an abstract pattern while a digital network is a concrete computational unit. --Mikeblas 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup!

JA: A little bit of arrow-chasing reveals that the problem is worse than that. Somebody, maybe in-divertently, maybe as a joke, created a redirect loop between digital circuit and digital electronics, and the page on digital network is just plain off-base from the normal use of that term. Will work on fixing the mess. Jon Awbrey 12:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

In the current version of the page, this sentence is a trainwreck:

"There is a growing understanding that logic and physical synthesis problems can be solved using AIGs simulation and boolean satisfiability compute functional properties (such as symmetries) and node flexibilities (such as don't-cares, resubstitutions, and SPFDs)."

Can somebody who thinks they understand what this sentence is supposed to be saying try to clean it up a little? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.49.227 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was quoted literally from the ACM SIGDA article, indicating that the latter hadn't received too much attention. I tried to make the sentence syntactically correct with minimal changes, based on the abstracts of Bjesse.Borälv.2004 and Mishchenko.Zhang.Sinha.2006. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And-inverter graph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208034716/http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html to http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on Sum-of-products?

There are dozens of reference on this across many papers/literature. The concept is almost trivially simple. If some one provides an explanation in grade school math, is a citation required. This seems like Tag bombing. First the tagger could have easily found a reference on the web to provide a citation. Second, any edit that tries to rectify the situation can be tagged again with some sort of insufficient reference. The article Karnaugh map uses sum-of-product equations which is quite primitive/basic to this topic (digital logic). There is no reference to the logic equation (and mathematic structure on the Karnaugh map page; and I am NOT implying there should be). Can I tag any math equation on Wikipedia with a citation needed? Ie, the math is another language and I can pretend I don't understand it? That audacious thing is that no rational for the tag is left in discussion. 66.244.255.122 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change was made in this edit by anonymous IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And-inverter_graph&oldid=617847962 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for advice on whether to 1. Find a single reference out of thousands. 2. Put an inline description of SOP. 3. Delete this citation needed. Which choice(s) is/are best? 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the tagger issue is the efficiency of AIG vs SOP, the tag did not imply which. So, I suggest action '3'. And if someone retags, they provide context. 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A citation mid-sentence seems to imply the preceding fragment vs the complete sentence. It seems some bot should delete citation tags that do not provide context on the discussion page. Hopefully I have made the ambiguous context in the midst of human language clear. 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]