Talk:And-inverter graph

This article could use a little bit of help. The first paragraph seems to be a contradiction; the first sentence describes a network, while the second describes the circuit being used as a data structure--which doesn't make sense, as a data structure is an abstract pattern while a digital network is a concrete computational unit. --Mikeblas 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: A little bit of arrow-chasing reveals that the problem is worse than that. Somebody, maybe in-divertently, maybe as a joke, created a redirect loop between digital circuit and digital electronics, and the page on digital network is just plain off-base from the normal use of that term. Will work on fixing the mess. Jon Awbrey 12:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the current version of the page, this sentence is a trainwreck:

"There is a growing understanding that logic and physical synthesis problems can be solved using AIGs simulation and boolean satisfiability compute functional properties (such as symmetries) and node flexibilities (such as don't-cares, resubstitutions, and SPFDs)."

Can somebody who thinks they understand what this sentence is supposed to be saying try to clean it up a little? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.49.227 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

:The sentence was quoted literally from the ACM SIGDA [http://archive.sigda.org/newsletter/2006/060215.txt article], indicating that the latter hadn't received too much attention. I tried to make the sentence syntactically correct with minimal changes, based on the abstracts of Bjesse.Borälv.2004 and Mishchenko.Zhang.Sinha.2006. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And-inverter graph. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=789016114 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208034716/http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html to http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There are dozens of reference on this across many papers/literature. The concept is almost trivially simple. If some one provides an explanation in grade school math, is a citation required. This seems like Tag bombing. First the tagger could have easily found a reference on the web to provide a citation. Second, any edit that tries to rectify the situation can be tagged again with some sort of insufficient reference. The article Karnaugh map uses sum-of-product equations which is quite primitive/basic to this topic (digital logic). There is no reference to the logic equation (and mathematic structure on the Karnaugh map page; and I am NOT implying there should be). Can I tag any math equation on Wikipedia with a citation needed? Ie, the math is another language and I can pretend I don't understand it? That audacious thing is that no rational for the tag is left in discussion. 66.244.255.122 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

: Change was made in this edit by anonymous IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And-inverter_graph&oldid=617847962 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:: I am looking for advice on whether to 1. Find a single reference out of thousands. 2. Put an inline description of SOP. 3. Delete this citation needed. Which choice(s) is/are best? 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::: If the tagger issue is the efficiency of AIG vs SOP, the tag did not imply which. So, I suggest action '3'. And if someone retags, they provide context. 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: A citation mid-sentence seems to imply the preceding fragment vs the complete sentence. It seems some bot should delete citation tags that do not provide context on the discussion page. Hopefully I have made the ambiguous context in the midst of human language clear. 66.244.255.122 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)