ternary logic

vipin kumar · Mar 3, 2004

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i
go about it

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

thanx

Ian Stirling · Mar 3, 2004

In sci.electronics.design vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in> wrote:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

It's basically as it greatly complicates things.
To compare a voltage with a threshold requires only one active device,
and you don't care about its linearity.

To work out which level a ternery signal is at takes several devices,
as you've got to decode the output of two comparators.
Trying to do things without this means that you require good linearity
and accuracy in the logic.
This is a problem.

However, this sort of scheme is used in some FLASH memories to double
the data stored.
Two bits per cell are stored. I forget the series name, but know that
intel do one.

Jim Thompson · Mar 3, 2004

On 3 Mar 2004 06:56:37 -0800, kvipin@iitk.ac.in (vipin kumar) wrote:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i
go about it

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

thanx

I regularly use Ternary for analog chip option selections...

Grounded = Option 1
Float = Option 2
Tied to VDD = Option 3

But it generally takes a comparator or two to accomplish this, unless,
for example, you're just setting one resistor value.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Tim Wescott · Mar 3, 2004

"vipin kumar" <kvipin@iitk.ac.in> wrote in message
news:3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com...

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i
go about it

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

thanx

Binary logic is easy, trinary logic would require more circuitry inside the
chip -- possibly more than the 2/3 saving in gate count. You'd also need
more gate types to account for the greater possibilities, and lots of
retraining, and a complete overhaul of an entire industry, etc.

Intel has a flash memory product that uses a four-level storage scheme, so
each cell holds two bits, it's how they achieve their highest densities. It
works because (a) it's all inside the chip and (b) there's _lots_ of cells
which haven't gotten any more complex and a relative few sense amplifiers,
which have.

John Woodgate · Mar 3, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in>
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt

about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i go
about it

Ternary logic (base 3) isn't difficult to implement, but all the 60
years' research, almost, has gone into implementing binary.

You do ternary logic with logic levels -1, 0 and 1. Simple complementary
device circuits, with dual supplies, can do this quite well, with the
active devices being either on or off. I don't know of any single
semiconductor device that is inherently ternary, but I expect one could
be made. But a long-tailed pair can work like that - A on, B on, both
off.

It is also possible to use, at the physical level, 0 volts, 5 volts and
10 volts, for example. This is only a matter of which line you takes a
'0 volts'.

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

I don't have any links, but you might Google for 'ternary logic'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

R.Lewis · Mar 3, 2004

"vipin kumar" <kvipin@iitk.ac.in> wrote in message
news:3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com...

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

If only someone would think of going that bit further - say to decimal.
I mean, the way I see it, 10^n is *so* much greater than than 2^n that ....
the size of equipment will be the same as it currently is (unless mankind
enlarges or shrinks).

Fred Bartoli · Mar 4, 2004

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message
news: gTxtinEWvgRAFwW$@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

Yeah. That is log...ic

Fred.

Cult of Nurse's · Mar 4, 2004

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i go
about it

Ternary logic (base 3) isn't difficult to implement, but all the 60
years' research, almost, has gone into implementing binary.

You do ternary logic with logic levels -1, 0 and 1. Simple complementary
device circuits, with dual supplies, can do this quite well, with the
active devices being either on or off. I don't know of any single
semiconductor device that is inherently ternary, but I expect one could
be made. But a long-tailed pair can work like that - A on, B on, both
off.

It is also possible to use, at the physical level, 0 volts, 5 volts and
10 volts, for example. This is only a matter of which line you takes a
'0 volts'.

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

I don't have any links, but you might Google for 'ternary logic'.

I think in the serialization of data, it was useful to encode in
ternary, if you enforce a gray code.

Spehro Pefhany · Mar 4, 2004

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:58:38 +0100, the renowned "Fred Bartoli"
<fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message
news: gTxtinEWvgRAFwW$@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

Yeah. That is log...ic

It's only natural.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Jim Thompson · Mar 4, 2004

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:15:29 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:58:38 +0100, the renowned "Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message
news: gTxtinEWvgRAFwW$@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

Yeah. That is log...ic

It's only natural.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

GPG · Mar 4, 2004

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<gTxtinEWvgRAFwW$@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...

I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i go
about it

Ternary logic (base 3) isn't difficult to implement, but all the 60
years' research, almost, has gone into implementing binary.

You do ternary logic with logic levels -1, 0 and 1. Simple complementary
device circuits, with dual supplies, can do this quite well, with the
active devices being either on or off. I don't know of any single
semiconductor device that is inherently ternary, but I expect one could
be made. But a long-tailed pair can work like that - A on, B on, both
off.

It is also possible to use, at the physical level, 0 volts, 5 volts and
10 volts, for example. This is only a matter of which line you takes a
'0 volts'.

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

I don't have any links, but you might Google for 'ternary logic'.

RF remotes use trinary .1, 0, and o/c

Dave Holford · Mar 4, 2004

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i
go about it

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

thanx

I would think that a major objection would be that the digits would have
to be called "tits".

Dave

vipin kumar · Mar 4, 2004

people i am not even talking about using a binary device to realize
ternary logic ( i can do that )
so i realy am not looking on for the intel devices

regarding 10^n its better than mine but due to my limited energy and
limied
I.Q i think it would be better that i initially stick out with the
ternary one

the real thing which is going to sell this product is not because i
have implemented ternary using binary but because i have made
fundamentally ternary

what i mean is instead of on and off i am thinking about a fundamental
entity
( much like a triode / diode to binary ) which takes on 3 ( or more
states ) which are mutually interchangeable by applying potential
difference

the only original idea that i have got till now is using a dna
having 4 states or an organic molecule having 3 tautomers and do
something of that sort

but i hate doing things the organic way so the debate is still open

also the real thing which is going to sell this baby is the size
reduction it brings
using complex binary circuits to realize ternary logic is definitely
not the way to do that because ending binary is the fundamental thing
in my mind !!

vipin kumar

Fred Bartoli · Mar 4, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> a écrit dans le message news:
js0d40lssv8uv9b5h0gasugh9cqe8c7qfb@4ax.com...

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:15:29 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:58:38 +0100, the renowned "Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message
news: gTxtinEWvgRAFwW$@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for
60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

Yeah. That is log...ic

It's only natural.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

LOL!

I think the real problem is you can only do "majority" logic and
adders. The world runs on Yes/No... no gray areas ;-)

No! The world run on yes/no and hmmm.

Fred.

robin.pain@tesco.net · Mar 4, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<js0d40lssv8uv9b5h0gasugh9cqe8c7qfb@4ax.com>...

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:15:29 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:58:38 +0100, the renowned "Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message
news: gTxtinEWvgRAFwW$@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that vipin kumar <kvipin@iitk.ac.in
wrote (in <3bf9d8c3.0403030656.70085ae8@posting.google.com&gt about
'ternary logic', on Wed, 3 Mar 2004:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor here

It can be shown that the overall optimum base for digital computation
is e = 2.718..., but no-one knows how to do that, AFAIK.

Yeah. That is log...ic

It's only natural.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

LOL!

I think the real problem is you can only do "majority" logic and
adders. The world runs on Yes/No... no gray areas ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Quite right, I'm the only gay in Wales.

Robin

Robert Baer · Mar 4, 2004

vipin kumar wrote:

hi there

i was just wondering that why despite of using the binary logic for 60
years now ( almost ) we are stilll stuck with that

i mean the way i see it 3^n is much greater than 2^n . i am talking
about the reduction in the size of equipments by a biblical factor
here

but the thing is if there could be implemented then how the hell do i
go about it

any info or links in this regard will be highly appreciated

thanx

I vaguely remember seeing articles about low temperature (ie near
absolute zero) discoveries that allow N-state logic,where one can
engineer N to as high as 7-10 (??).
And i might have seen something about a multi-layer exotic diode that
could be engineered for N up to 5 (??).
One injects energy in one form to "pump up" the level, and another
form to "pull out" energy and lower the level.

John Beardmore · Mar 4, 2004

In message <c25mbd$cfo$1@thorium.cix.co.uk>, R.Lewis
<h.lewis-not@this.bit-.invalid> writes

If only someone would think of going that bit further - say to decimal.
I mean, the way I see it, 10^n is *so* much greater than than 2^n that ....
the size of equipment will be the same as it currently is (unless mankind
enlarges or shrinks).

Why not go the whole hog and represent numbers as voltages ?

J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Woodgate · Mar 4, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Beardmore
<wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote (in <Aflgb25tyxRAFwio@wookie.demon.co.
uk&gt

about 'ternary logic', on Thu, 4 Mar 2004:

Why not go the whole hog and represent numbers as voltages ?

Many people have used LM3914 and 3 x LM339 for this purpose,
implementing a denary logic system. It works quite well over a few tens
of metres in electrically-quiet conditions.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Roger Gt · Mar 4, 2004

"vipin kumar" wrote
: people I am not even talking about using a binary device to
realize
: ternary logic ( I can do that )
: so I really am not looking on for the Intel devices
:
: regarding 10^n its better than mine but due to my limited
energy and
: limited I.Q I think it would be better that I initially stick
out with the
: ternary one

Besides it has been done! Like the IBM1620 computer and several
others. NOT an efficient use of circuitry. No internal math,
used look-up tables.
The Inca's used base 20, perhaps we should base our logic on their
system? They used string to keep arithmetic records and that is
still an option.

: the real thing which is going to sell this product is not
because I
: have implemented ternary using binary but because I have made
: fundamentally ternary

Nothing will SELL this as a product. I've seen coding schemes
come and go, only binary survives in common use.

: what I mean is instead of on and off I am thinking about a
fundamental
: entity
: ( much like a triode / diode to binary ) which takes on 3 ( or
more
: states ) which are mutually interchangeable by applying
potential
: difference
:
: the only original idea that I have got till now is using a dna
: having 4 states or an organic molecule having 3 tautomers and do
: something of that sort
:
: but I hate doing things the organic way so the debate is still
open
:
: also the real thing which is going to sell this baby is the size
: reduction it brings

ternary logic requires MORE real-estate on a chip, not less. No
reduction!

: using complex binary circuits to realize ternary logic is
definitely
: not the way to do that because ending binary is the fundamental
thing
: in my mind !!
: vipin kumar

There is No need or reason to END binary, it is the simplest
system and pervasive. There is no improvement provided by ternary
which can not be achieved by binary logic.

Clear your mind and move on!
Re-inventing the wheel is not a good use of your time except for
mental gymnastics!

I also think this "Idea" is a put on.

&gt

John Woodgate · Mar 4, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote (in
<SoK1c.5926$UC7.1298@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com&gt

about 'ternary logic',
on Thu, 4 Mar 2004:

There is No need or reason to END binary, it is the simplest system and
pervasive. There is no improvement provided by ternary which can not be
achieved by binary logic.

You have, of course, thoroughly investigated the matter and published
results that support your conclusion.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

ternary logic

vipin kumar

Guest

Ian Stirling

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Tim Wescott

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

R.Lewis

Guest

Fred Bartoli

Guest

Cult of Nurse's

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

GPG

Guest

Dave Holford

Guest

vipin kumar

Guest

Fred Bartoli

Guest

robin.pain@tesco.net

Guest

Robert Baer

Guest

John Beardmore

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Roger Gt

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor