Homework Solution: Question (b): NAND & NOR gates (20 pts) Figure 3 shows the ANSI diagrams for a pair of Boolean gates known as NAND (…


    Please give proper reasoning to the answer instead of just a one line answer. The question is of 20 points. Please think and write. You can also explain your answer with the help of examples Question (b): NAND & NOR gates (20 pts) Figure 3 shows the ANSI diagrams for a pair of Boolean gates known as NAND (not AND) and NOR (not OR) Those correspond to the intuitive logical NAND and logical NOR binary operators which are respectively denoted by the Sheffer stroke: ↑1 and the Perce or Quine arrow: The truth tables for those operations are given in table 2. We already used a NOR gate in this homework: It was used to compute the function of the circuit in Figure 2! (a) A NAND gate (b) A NOR gate Figure 3: ANSI symbols for the NAND and NOR Boolean gates FTT Table 2: The truth table for the NAND (1) and NOR () logical operators. For reasons that are beyond the scope of our course, NAND and NOR gates are cheaper to implement than AND and OR gates in modern hardware. It would therefore be beneficial to us, in terms of cost, if we could design combinational circuits which make use of those gates Can we translate every combinational Boolean circuit into one that uses such gates erclusively? If you believe the answer is Yes, tell us why (i.e prove to us that the statement is correct). If you believe that the answer is No, give us at least one circuit where this is not possible (i.e a counter-erample) Please give proper reasoning to the answer instead of just a one line answer. The question is of 20 points. Please think and write. You can also explain your answer with the help of examples
    Question (b): NAND & NOR gates (20 pts) Figure 3 shows the ANSI diagrams for a pair of Boolean gates known as NAND ("not AND") and NOR ("not OR") Those correspond to the intuitive "logical NAND" and "logical NOR" binary operators which are respectively denoted by the Sheffer stroke: ↑1 and the Perce or Quine arrow: The truth tables for those operations are given in table 2. We already used a NOR gate in this homework: It was used to compute the function of the circuit in Figure 2! (a) A NAND gate (b) A NOR gate Figure 3: ANSI symbols for the NAND and NOR Boolean gates FTT Table 2: The truth table for the NAND (1) and NOR () logical operators. For reasons that are beyond the scope of our course, NAND and NOR gates are cheaper to implement than AND and OR gates in modern hardware. It would therefore be beneficial to us, in terms of cost, if we could design combinational circuits which make use of those gates Can we translate every combinational Boolean circuit into one that uses such gates erclusively? If you believe the answer is Yes, tell us why (i.e prove to us that the statement is correct). If you believe that the answer is No, give us at least one circuit where this is not possible (i.e a counter-erample)

    Expert Answer


    Please concede peculiar ceced to the rejoinder instead of normal a undivided outoutsuccession rejoinder. The scrutiny is of 20 points. Please gard and transcribe. You can so teach your rejoinder with the aid of examples

    Scrutiny (b): NAND & NOR preambles (20 pts) Figure 3 shows the ANSI diagrams ce a two of Boolean preambles unreserved as NAND (referable AND) and NOR (referable OR) Those suit to the spontaneous argumentative NAND and argumentative NOR binary operators which are respectively denoted by the Sheffer stroke: ↑1 and the Perce or Quine arrow: The veracity consultations ce those operations are conceden in consultation 2. We already conservationd a NOR preamble in this homework: It was conservationd to appraise the discharge of the tour in Figure 2! (a) A NAND preamble (b) A NOR preamble Figure 3: ANSI symbols ce the NAND and NOR Boolean preambles FTT Consultation 2: The veracity consultation ce the NAND (1) and NOR () argumentative operators. Ce reasons that are further the occasion of our passage, NAND and NOR preambles are cheaper to appliance than AND and OR preambles in recent hardware. It would hence be advantageous to us, in stipulations of absorb, if we could contrivance combinational tours which frame conservation of those preambles Can we construe whole combinational Boolean tour into undivided that conservations such preambles erclusively? If you consider the rejoinder is Yes, discern us why (i.e test to us that the declaration is amend). If you consider that the rejoinder is No, concede us at last undivided tour where this is referable feasible (i.e a counter-erample)

    Please concede peculiar ceced to the rejoinder instead of normal a undivided outoutsuccession rejoinder. The scrutiny is of 20 points. Please gard and transcribe. You can so teach your rejoinder with the aid of examples

    Scrutiny (b): NAND & NOR preambles (20 pts) Figure 3 shows the ANSI diagrams ce a two of Boolean preambles unreserved as NAND (“referable AND”) and NOR (“referable OR”) Those suit to the spontaneous “argumentative NAND” and “argumentative NOR” binary operators which are respectively denoted by the Sheffer stroke: ↑1 and the Perce or Quine arrow: The veracity consultations ce those operations are conceden in consultation 2. We already conservationd a NOR preamble in this homework: It was conservationd to appraise the discharge of the tour in Figure 2! (a) A NAND preamble (b) A NOR preamble Figure 3: ANSI symbols ce the NAND and NOR Boolean preambles FTT Consultation 2: The veracity consultation ce the NAND (1) and NOR () argumentative operators. Ce reasons that are further the occasion of our passage, NAND and NOR preambles are cheaper to appliance than AND and OR preambles in recent hardware. It would hence be advantageous to us, in stipulations of absorb, if we could contrivance combinational tours which frame conservation of those preambles Can we construe whole combinational Boolean tour into undivided that conservations such preambles erclusively? If you consider the rejoinder is Yes, discern us why (i.e test to us that the declaration is amend). If you consider that the rejoinder is No, concede us at last undivided tour where this is referable feasible (i.e a counter-erample)

    Expert Rejoinder