Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

16
  • 4
    If you had followed the link on wikipedia you could have found that the concept of a boolean algebra is closed related with that of a Galois field of two elements (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF%282%29). The symbols 0 and 1 are conventionally used to denote the additive and multiplicative identities, respectively, because the real numbers are also a field whose identities are the numbers 0 and 1. Commented May 15, 2013 at 22:08
  • 1
    @NeilG I think Giorgio is trying to say it's more than just a convention. 0 and 1 in boolean algebra are basically the same as 0 and 1 in GF(2), which behave almost the same as 0 and 1 in real numbers with regards to addition and multiplication. Commented May 15, 2013 at 23:47
  • 1
    @svick: No, because you can simply rename multiplication and saturating addition to be OR and AND and then flip the labels so that 0 is True and 1 is False. Giorgio is saying that it was a convention of Boolean logic, which was adopted as a convention of computer science. Commented May 16, 2013 at 0:49
  • 1
    @Neil G: No, you cannot flip + and * and 0 and 1 because a field requires distributivity of multiplication over addition (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28mathematics%29), but if you set + := AND and * := XOR, you get T XOR (T AND F) = T XOR F = T, whereas (T XOR T) AND (T XOR F) = F AND T = F. Therefore by flipping the operations and the identities you do not have a field any more. So IMO defining 0 and 1 as the identities of an appropriate field seems to capture false and true pretty faithfully. Commented May 16, 2013 at 1:08
  • 1
    @giorgio: I have edited the answer to make it obvious what is going on. Commented May 17, 2013 at 5:55