The summing outputs of a half- or full-adder are designated by which Greek symbol? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The summing outputs of a half- or full-adder are designated by which Greek symbol?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Flag at a half most is the symbol ?....

QA->The Country which decided to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy recently?....

QA->Scale 1:x designated as :....

QA->Who has been designated as the chairman by the IBA?....

QA->Whichcity has been designated as the UNESCO World Book Capital 2019?....

MCQ->The summing outputs of a half- or full-adder are designated by which Greek symbol?....

MCQ-> Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: Passage II Reverence is a dirty word at the Almeida Theatre in Islington, North London. Rupert Goold, the artistic director, and Robert Icke, his associate, are resolved to take dusty, distant cultural artefacts of drama and shake them hard. so that they will entertain modern audiences, especially those with no previous knowledge of the plays. Mr Icke holds that to save the classics from withering, a director must be willing even to reinterpret the original author's intentions. This summer Messrs Goold and Icke have directed freshly translated versions of the oldest of all "dusty theatrical artefacts": the ancient Greek tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides. These versions ruthless) rewrite texts and alter plots. In Euripides's "Medea'. the last of the season of three plays which opened on 1st October directed by Mr Goold. Medea murders her two children as revenge on her unfaithful husband. Not at the Almeida: in this version, her sons die—or perhaps do not—by eating sleeping pills. Mr Icke's version of "Oresteia" by Aeschylus is described as "a new adaptation", but classics scholars insist that it is much more than that. The masked male chorus which propels all Greek tragedy, so memorable in Sir Peter Hall's production at the National Theatre in 1981, is jettisoned. Mr Icke's -Oresteie starts with 46 pages of text (out of 113 in all) that are a dramatisation of the long choral ode in Aeschylus's "Agamemnon-. It deals with his decision to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to ensure his ships a fair wind for Troy. Mr Icke believes that, without this prelude, it is hard to appreciate fully the ensuing, awe-inspiring family tragedy in which his wife Klytemnestra kills Agamemnon to avenge their daughter's death, and then is murdered in turn by their son Orestes. The extra material makes for a long evening, but it speeds by. Only the "Bakkhai". the second of the Almeida's three plays, conforms to the traditional Greek unities of time and place, and as in ancient Greece, has all the speaking roles played by three actors, backed by a chorus (though of Bacchic ladies rather than masked men). The Greek season defines the Almeida's style of work. Mr Goold has unearthed a rich new seam of modem theatre by reviving and generally energising work by authors such as Luigi Pirandello and Bret Easton Ellis. His delightful version of "The Merchant of Venice"- set in Las Vegas, was played largely for laughs, with the verse adapting easily to a singsong southern American accent. Even his failures, such as a "King Lear and Puccini at the English National Opera, had moments that linger in the memory. Actors like working there. Since small theatres like the Almeida cannot pay well, actors choose the work over the money. In this Greek season, the two most memorable performances are by Lia Williams as Klytemnestra and Kate Fleetwood, who is Mr Goold's wife, as Medea. Each exhibits an emotional range that holds the action together. The rage, temper and insult of the dialogue between Medea and her husband Jason, here conducted on their mobile phones, reveal a direct linguistic link from ancient Greece to contemporary soap opera. Whatever quibbles there might be about the editing, cutting and rewriting of the texts, surely the significant question about this ambitious project is whether the audience is gripped by the performances. Enthusiastic word-of-mouth suggests the answer is yes.In this passage, the word "reverence" can be interpreted as....

MCQ-> In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match No. 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match No. 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match No. 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match No. 1 of first round plays the winner of match No. 16 of first round and is designated match No. 1 of second round. Similarly, the winner of match No. 2 of first round plays the winner of match No. 15 of first round, and is designated match No. 2 of second round. Thus, for instance, match No. 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match No. 8 of first round and the winner of match No. 9 of first round. The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well.

If there are no upsets (a lower seeded player beating a higher seeded player) in the first round, and only match Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the second round result in upsets, then who would meet Lindsay Davenport in quarter finals, in case Davenport reaches quarter finals?
....

MCQ->Consider the following statements a half adder. As a half subtractor alsohas two outputs CH = x x y and Sn = x ⊕ y for two inputs x and yhas two outputs CH = x + y and SH = x ⊕ y for two inputs x and yis a combinational circuit Which of the statements given above is/are correct?....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....