×

SparkFun Electronics will be closed in observance of memorial day on Monday, May 29th. We will resume normal business hours on Tuesday, May 30th. Any orders placed after 2pm Mountain Time on Friday, May 26th will process and ship out on Tuesday, May 30th.

# mdancer

Member Since: July 11, 2014

Country: United States

• I agree completely and that is the point I was attempting to make (perhaps not as clearly as possible). Shawn stated that XOR isn’t fundamental because it can be written in terms of AND, OR, and NOT thereby implying that those operators are in a sense fundamental. My post was trying to show that those operators can also be written in terms of other logic operators, thereby highlighting the fallacy in trying to label certain operators as fundamental. I think your use of the term basis is much more accurate.

• Nice write up, but I want to pick on one thing. You said exclusive OR is not considered a fundamental logic operator because it can be written in terms of AND, OR, and NOT. If we follow that logic (see what I did there!), however, then AND and OR cannot both be fundamental logic operators because De Morgan’s laws provide a relationship between AND, OR, and NOT:

NOT A AND B equals NOT A OR NOT B

NOT A OR B equals NOT A AND NOT B

So AND can be written in terms of OR and NOT, or OR could be written in terms of AND and NOT. We can also go one step further. If you write the truth table for a NAND gate, you’ll see that it contains the logic for NOT if the inputs are connected together. So it’s possible to construct AND, OR, and NOT from just NAND gates (you can do the same with NOR), meaning NAND is really the only fundamental logic operator.

• Speaking of toilets with unicorn qualities, this commercial came on the other day, and… well, just watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYWhdLO43Q

• If one were follow the fritzing diagram exactly, the red LED would not light up. The jumper connecting the resistor to ground is in the wrong place.

• Unfortunately it took tragedy before SparkFun HR took those “working us to death” complaints seriously.

• Actually, you don’t need calculus to derive the equations for capacitors. The trick is to use electric charge, not current, and the definition of capacitance, C = Q/V. When the capacitors are connected in parallel, the charge supplied by the source is distributed between the two capacitors, thus Qs = Q1+Q2. When in series, the source pushes a charge into C1 which pushes the same charge into C2 which finally pushes the same charge back to the source, thus Qs = Q1 = Q2. With just a little algebra, the equations are yours.

Note: The calculus buffs would remind us that charge is just the integral of current, so I guess the calculus is there, just hidden!

• I am very glad that I wasn’t the only one to see that!

• I think we’ll all agree that the next logical step is obviously to get the helmet DOT approved (and possibly buy a motorcycle).

• I am tired of these \$%&@ sharks on this &*\$@% PRS!

• Unfortunately, not everyone is cut out to be a Mario Kart racer.

No public wish lists :(

In 2003, CU student Nate Seidle blew a power supply in his dorm room and, in lieu of a way to order easy replacements, decided to start his own company. Since then, SparkFun has been committed to sustainably helping our world achieve electronics literacy from our headquarters in Boulder, Colorado.

No matter your vision, SparkFun's products and resources are designed to make the world of electronics more accessible. In addition to over 2,000 open source components and widgets, SparkFun offers curriculum, training and online tutorials designed to help demystify the wonderful world of embedded electronics. We're here to help you start something.