Re: Could anyone verify a term for me?

William L. Bahn wrote:
[...]
f = (b & c) | ((~b) & d) // notice inclusive-OR
[...]
However, you do have an error
in that it should be inclusive or and not exclusive or. A bit
surprisingly, however, both yield the same results for the
initial values used - I wonder if that is coincidental or it if
is intentional.

I suspect you'll be even more surprised if you try to find
values for b, c and d such that

(b & c) | ((~b) & d)

and

(b & c) ^ ((~b) & d)

yield different results.


--
--Bryan
.