Ben Schnur:
> Okay, I think I mostly understand it now, but I'm still not sure about one
> thing:
>
> When we are listing prime compatibles:
>
> If there are two states that could be used, each of which covers a pair,
> and one of the states in each pair is shared between them, do we need to
> list the states that differ as well, or do we only do that when the state
> covering a pair (or clique) implies another covering state?
>
> e.g., if we could make states XY and XZ (no implications), do we list Y and
> Z again on their own?

No. There is no significant cost to using XY instead of X so just list XY. I
know that implies the possibility of missing some opportunity to leave a
don't-care around in a state variable function or output function. That is
O.K. Minimizing state count is a first-order concern. Potentially dropping
a rare don't-care is a second-order concern.

Best Regards,

-Robert Dick-
Received on Mon Nov 24 18:36:21 2008