Talk:Complete set of Boolean operators

Still some doubts
Can someone here tell me whether the term "complete Boolean algebra" is in fact used for the concept defined in this article? In Googling the only references I can find to it seem likely to have derived either from an old article at Complete Boolean algebra (before I changed that article to the mathematical notion), or from the following site, http://users.senet.com.au/~dwsmith/concept1.htm, which frankly does not inspire confidence. If the dwsmith article simply made up the term, we should probably remove Complete Boolean algebra (computer science), though the content might be recreated under a different name. --Trovatore 17:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, having done a bit of googling myself, I can quite see your point. Especially since all I have to back it up with is memories of a university lecturer who certainly used that term... but some rather intense googling has turned up http://www.southwestern.edu/~shelton/REU02/Presentations/Miller.ppt (do you know how little effect and, or and not have on a google search? Too little...) I don't expect that to help much either, but I'll go home, find my old textbook, check on its definition of the term, and come back here tomorrow with a quote and the name, author and ISBN of the textbook. 196.36.80.163 06:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is definitly defined in the Essence of Logic by Kelly. I don't know if he defined this as complete though and I gave away my copy. --R.Koot 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Good, corroboration... especially since after having had a good look, I have come to the conclusion that I think I sold that textbook... nonetheless, it has a title (Digital Design Principles and Practices), an author (John F. Wakerly), and a website (http://www.ddpp.com/). Unfortunately, the table of contents page does not explicitly list "complete boolean algebra" (or "boolean algebra, complete" or even "switching algera, complete"). I have managed to locate a page that describes NAND and NOR as "complete functions" (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:6XCQU2HYotoJ:lapwww.epfl.ch/courses/archord1/intro.pdf+%22Digital+Design+Principles+and+Practices%22+%22a+complete%22+boolean+algebra+%22and%22+%22or%22+%22not%22&hl=en&client=opera) - I'm not sure whether or not this helps or hinders my case. So far, I have two websites that use the term and my own memories of a university lecturer who does similarly, tied in with R. Koot's collaboration. But if you're still unsure, feel free to tag this page as disputed... 196.36.80.163 09:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I believe you. However it would be good to find the texts. Neither you nor Rudy seems to be sure what the concept should actually be called; we ought to find that out before we forget about it. --Trovatore 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get hold of someone who's still got the book... 196.36.80.163 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got it! Kelly calls a connetive sufficient if it can represent all propositional logic forms. --R.Koot 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So does he have a name for a collection of Boolean functions that can do that, even if no one does it by itself? --Trovatore 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Also I moved the article to Sufficiently connected because that was the name of the paragraph in which this was mentioned. I don't think this name is right either. &mdash;R. Koot 01:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't come back - I'm the same IP address from earlier, there is an ISP that seems to randomly alter the address it uses and it hit a banned (open proxy) IP for a few days recently. I found someone with Digital Design - Principles and Practices and it says nothing about a complete Boolean algebra, at least not under that term. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what the correct term is - or even if there is an officially recognised one. The concept is certainly a fairly important one, so I think there should be a general name for it... somewhere... 196.34.166.250 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)