ore often. =A0
rectly. =A0'Adder'
ro result, zero carry
=3D> one =A0result, zero carry
=3D? zero result, one =A0carry
=3D> zero result, zero borrow
=3D> one =A0result, zero borrow
=3D> one =A0result, one =A0borrow
Yup, you're right to the core. I find it interesting that the bulk of your comments are degrading and condescending to justabout anybody here. You must really think you're something. Welll... I'm here to tell you that you are not nice.
Thatsa forshure. Most produce product that, well, in their minds is art, but really? Then there is that faction that is highly skilled in certain disciplines, like bronze casting, throwing pots, building medicine cabinets, but do they have the creativity to have it become art? I realize that some of that becomes extremely difficult to see. A local guy makes these doorknobs on his lathe. Basically balls on a bolt. Art? Then we have this thing every year called Art In The Park. I assure you that shit comes in many shapes, materials and colours. I have yet to see any of that kind of 'art' in the National in London (UK), Rijksmuseum or the Taft. That is not to say that I like all I have travelled to see, just no shit. At least no shit by my definition of shit.....and shit is in the eye of the beholder, n'est pas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or, don't look up at flocks of geese flying directly overhead ...
Do you have any idea how much a pissed on rope by Warhol or Picasso would go for in today's market?
With modern DNA testing, to test its "provenance", it could go for MILLIONS!!
Just saying...
Hmmm ... wonder if Antiques Roadshow tested that Indian blanket for smallpox?
Above you use 2's complement representations in your example. Now you switch tracks to 1's complement representation of negative numbers (the only format where negation = inversion). Yes, bitwise *INVERSION* can be done by a single transistor (indeed it takes zero clock cycles to invert a signal), but this is a negation only if you're doing 1's complement arithmetic. You still have to do...
That must be one of the reasons they switched to 2s complement, no?
I hate to answer my own question, but the main reason was the duplicity of zeros in 1s complement, I think.
Bill
But how would one prove it had been pissed Up?
How long is this rope?
How long is this rope?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pull on it and the Heavens open up ...
While Krenov's work is certainly inspirational, that's about the ugliest job of book design... or it would be, had "The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking" not been published. Both just scream the worst of late '70s design. (Thank goodness neither is set in ITC Souvenir.)
Mainly, but the uncertainty of the wrap-around-carry doesn't help. I mot sure whether some of the fancier adders (carry look-ahead, carry save, etc.) work well for 1's complement, either (again, the wrap-around issue). Your observation on the two zeros is spot on, however. That takes an additional operation in the critical path of most calculations.
,
directly. 'Adder'
hard.http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/MC10H180-D.PDF>>>> > > > > > You can -accomplish- subtraction using an 'adder' and a bunch of inverters
borrow
borrow
borrowBetter than being a leftist loser, so yes, I am right.
I don't give a flying f*ck what *you* think. You, in particular. Moron.
Worse yet, Patterson now just sketches out the plot and has someone else do the writing. Of course, Norman Rockwell's later work was completed by studio assistants... Maybe like another Norm's never-seen shop assistants, eh?
I'll see your Krenov and raise you a Nakashima.
Not generally. That is one way to do it, but certainly not the only way. Hardware subtraction is no more difficult than addition. They're really the same logic (twisted, but really the same).
There have been many such things talked about here. Specifically, the IBM
1620, knows as the CADET, had a table look-up for addition. It couldn't subtract, either.The 1620 wasn't a "multi-million-dollar super-computer". It was, in fact, rather mundane. That's the reason it couldn't add - they didn't want to spend money on an adder. Note that it had no subtractor, either.
Thanks for the suggestion. Hmmm... "The Soul of a Tree". Looks like a book that should make it to my reading list someday... What does he teach? No, seriously!
Bill
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Well that's completely different! Using a look up table for addition... And apparently an extensive one if my 10 second internet search is worth anything.
Puckdropper
I had a more difficult time with Tage Frid's first book. I found the pictures very difficult to follow. Didn't make it very far before I had to return it to the library. Maybe next time.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.