[ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:39:42 -0700
Resending my earlier comment:
Fangyi,
Giving your comment some more thought, I realize that in cell B2
of the first picture we should probably have a "TRUE" because
the only way GetWave is allowed to be "FALSE" is if Use_Init_Output
is "TRUE". However, given the comment in highlighted yellow:
"When GetWave doesn't exist, the Use_Init_Output Boolean has
no effect on anything", this requirement is nullified because
it doesn't matter what its value is, it doesn't have an effect
on anything.
Of course we can turn this problem around and ask ourselves the
question, what was the intent of the authors of that sentence
in the spec then? Did they have something on their mind along the
lines of "Use_Init_Output" having an effect on other things than
just the GetWave function's input? In other words, was
Use_Init_Output really supposed to have an effect on GetWave
ONLY, or also on how the output of Tx Init is forwarded to Rx Init?
Arpad
===================================================================
________________________________
From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:36 AM
To: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir; Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
If A then B is equivalent to if !B then !A.
From: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir
[mailto:vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:31 AM
To: RAO,FANGYI (A-USA,ex1); Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
We need some extra reasoning for that.
By itself the statement "if A then B" does not necessitate "if B then A"
(an apple is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessary an apple).
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
Hi, Arpad;
You are right there is no statement in the BIRD about "if
GetWave_Exists=False, Use_Init_Output must be True". But it's the same
as "Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True".
Regards,
Fangyi
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:09 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
Fangyi,
Thanks for your comments.
I did find on pg. 145 that "If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists
must be True.",
but I can't find what you are saying: " if GetWave_Exists=False,
Use_Init_Output must be True."
Could you give me a page number for that?
Thanks,
Arpad
===========================================
________________________________
From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:01 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Truth table taken to the next level
Hi, Arpad;
I think your second table is also correct. I just want to point out that
the current BIRD explicitly states that if GetWave_Exists=False,
Use_Init_Output must be True. Although it won't change the logic of the
table, those X's for Use_Init_Output when GetWave_Exists=False should be
replaced by True.
Regards,
Fangyi
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:57 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Truth table taken to the next level
Dear AMI experts,
I cleaned up the spreadsheet with the truth table that we discussed
in our ATM meeting today. It looks like this now:
I hope I got it right this time.
The next thing I would like to do is to extend this table
and spell out how these conditions can be applied to Tx
and Rx independently. In other words, I don't believe
that our intent was to require these Booleans to be the
same for both Tx and Rx. But how many combinations are
valid?
We have four (4) combinations per buffer, and we have two
buffers, which could theoretically allow 4^2 = 16 total
possibilities. Are they all valid?
Thanks,
Arpad
============================================================
Other related posts:
