How does a biquinary adder work? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?

Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?

How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?

Doubts about chords

Did Xerox really develop the first LAN?

Difference between these two cards?

Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?

Does surprise arrest existing movement?

Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?

How to draw this diagram using TikZ package?

What happens to sewage if there is no river near by?

What does the "x" in "x86" represent?

What is a Meta algorithm?

Why is "Captain Marvel" translated as male in Portugal?

Is the address of a local variable a constexpr?

What are 'alternative tunings' of a guitar and why would you use them? Doesn't it make it more difficult to play?

What makes black pepper strong or mild?

Why was the term "discrete" used in discrete logarithm?

Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?

How can players work together to take actions that are otherwise impossible?

If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'

Is there a service that would inform me whenever a new direct route is scheduled from a given airport?

How does a Death Domain cleric's Touch of Death feature work with Touch-range spells delivered by familiars?

I am not a queen, who am I?



How does a biquinary adder work?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?










12















I whipped together a quick answer to this question and then realised, that I have no idea how these tubes manipulate the numbers. A binary adder is easy to understand to the modern mind; for each bit you can use an XOR for the result, and an AND for the carry.



But what about biquinary? how does 7 + 3 work out as 0 + carry, or 2 + 3 work out as 5, or 1 + 1 = 2?



Another way to phrase the question:
What digital circuit can do an addition like this:?



 01 00010 (that's a three to you and me)
+ 01 00100 (that's two)
= 10 10000 (five; note the upper thing got flipped and the lower thing moved two spaces rightward)


How is this happening?










share|improve this question
























  • I have created the biquinary

    – Wilson
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    Off topic. The abacus uses a biquinary representation of the operands. That's about as retro as you can get.

    – Walter Mitty
    16 hours ago











  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about basic electronics, not computing. Adding tubes to this doesn't change it anyway. Further there are plenty of explanation of these basics in common literature and the web.

    – Raffzahn
    13 hours ago







  • 1





    How did the adder work in the IBM 650?

    – Walter Mitty
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @WalterMitty that's the question.

    – Wilson
    11 hours ago















12















I whipped together a quick answer to this question and then realised, that I have no idea how these tubes manipulate the numbers. A binary adder is easy to understand to the modern mind; for each bit you can use an XOR for the result, and an AND for the carry.



But what about biquinary? how does 7 + 3 work out as 0 + carry, or 2 + 3 work out as 5, or 1 + 1 = 2?



Another way to phrase the question:
What digital circuit can do an addition like this:?



 01 00010 (that's a three to you and me)
+ 01 00100 (that's two)
= 10 10000 (five; note the upper thing got flipped and the lower thing moved two spaces rightward)


How is this happening?










share|improve this question
























  • I have created the biquinary

    – Wilson
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    Off topic. The abacus uses a biquinary representation of the operands. That's about as retro as you can get.

    – Walter Mitty
    16 hours ago











  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about basic electronics, not computing. Adding tubes to this doesn't change it anyway. Further there are plenty of explanation of these basics in common literature and the web.

    – Raffzahn
    13 hours ago







  • 1





    How did the adder work in the IBM 650?

    – Walter Mitty
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @WalterMitty that's the question.

    – Wilson
    11 hours ago













12












12








12








I whipped together a quick answer to this question and then realised, that I have no idea how these tubes manipulate the numbers. A binary adder is easy to understand to the modern mind; for each bit you can use an XOR for the result, and an AND for the carry.



But what about biquinary? how does 7 + 3 work out as 0 + carry, or 2 + 3 work out as 5, or 1 + 1 = 2?



Another way to phrase the question:
What digital circuit can do an addition like this:?



 01 00010 (that's a three to you and me)
+ 01 00100 (that's two)
= 10 10000 (five; note the upper thing got flipped and the lower thing moved two spaces rightward)


How is this happening?










share|improve this question
















I whipped together a quick answer to this question and then realised, that I have no idea how these tubes manipulate the numbers. A binary adder is easy to understand to the modern mind; for each bit you can use an XOR for the result, and an AND for the carry.



But what about biquinary? how does 7 + 3 work out as 0 + carry, or 2 + 3 work out as 5, or 1 + 1 = 2?



Another way to phrase the question:
What digital circuit can do an addition like this:?



 01 00010 (that's a three to you and me)
+ 01 00100 (that's two)
= 10 10000 (five; note the upper thing got flipped and the lower thing moved two spaces rightward)


How is this happening?







biquinary






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 16 hours ago







Wilson

















asked 16 hours ago









WilsonWilson

12.6k558145




12.6k558145












  • I have created the biquinary

    – Wilson
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    Off topic. The abacus uses a biquinary representation of the operands. That's about as retro as you can get.

    – Walter Mitty
    16 hours ago











  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about basic electronics, not computing. Adding tubes to this doesn't change it anyway. Further there are plenty of explanation of these basics in common literature and the web.

    – Raffzahn
    13 hours ago







  • 1





    How did the adder work in the IBM 650?

    – Walter Mitty
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @WalterMitty that's the question.

    – Wilson
    11 hours ago

















  • I have created the biquinary

    – Wilson
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    Off topic. The abacus uses a biquinary representation of the operands. That's about as retro as you can get.

    – Walter Mitty
    16 hours ago











  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about basic electronics, not computing. Adding tubes to this doesn't change it anyway. Further there are plenty of explanation of these basics in common literature and the web.

    – Raffzahn
    13 hours ago







  • 1





    How did the adder work in the IBM 650?

    – Walter Mitty
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @WalterMitty that's the question.

    – Wilson
    11 hours ago
















I have created the biquinary

– Wilson
16 hours ago





I have created the biquinary

– Wilson
16 hours ago




2




2





Off topic. The abacus uses a biquinary representation of the operands. That's about as retro as you can get.

– Walter Mitty
16 hours ago





Off topic. The abacus uses a biquinary representation of the operands. That's about as retro as you can get.

– Walter Mitty
16 hours ago













I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about basic electronics, not computing. Adding tubes to this doesn't change it anyway. Further there are plenty of explanation of these basics in common literature and the web.

– Raffzahn
13 hours ago






I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about basic electronics, not computing. Adding tubes to this doesn't change it anyway. Further there are plenty of explanation of these basics in common literature and the web.

– Raffzahn
13 hours ago





1




1





How did the adder work in the IBM 650?

– Walter Mitty
11 hours ago





How did the adder work in the IBM 650?

– Walter Mitty
11 hours ago




3




3





@WalterMitty that's the question.

– Wilson
11 hours ago





@WalterMitty that's the question.

– Wilson
11 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















13














From a modern chip design perspective, the design of bi-quinary adders is quite simple. The addend inputs are each composed of two 1-hot signals, and the sum output is two 1-hot signals as well. This is by the nature of bi-quinary, where the quinary part is 1-hot by definition and the binary part is a 2-bit signal that is 1-hot by convention, being either 01 for "zero" or 10 for "five". The latter also being 1-hot makes things easier.



A simple AND-OR tree suffices for adding these. In a biquinary half-adder each one of the outputs in the sum is just a multiple-input OR of the ANDs of the various input combinations that result in that digit. For examples: C4 is a multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "four" in the quinary part. C00 is multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "zero" in the binary part.



In a biquinary full-adder there is not all that much added complexity. The carry-in simply left-rotates the quinary part of one of the addends, and any rotation off the left-hand end of that addend is an extra input to the tree that sums the binary parts, alongside any carry from the addition of the quinary parts.



That is the modern view, at any rate. It was not quite done that way back in the days of relays.



The AND-OR tree was a matrix of relays, each combination of signals opening up a specific path (to ground) for the appropriate 1-hot outputs.



Carry-in and carry-out were also a 1-hot pair of wires, 01 for "no carry" and 10 for "carry". This, in combination with the binary parts of each addend being 1-hot, meant that the "binary side" of the adder was also a simple exercise in AND-OR logic, and a relay matrix too. And, of course, so to was the rotation.



Caesaro 1946 has a diagram of the relay matrix for a 1-digit biquinary full-adder in the Bell Laboratories' Relay Interpolator. Das et al. 2015 has a more modern block diagram and truth tables for the various outputs. It places the carry-in handling logic closer to the final output, rotating an intermediate result instead of one of the addends, does not have 1-hot carry, does not have 1-hot binary parts for the addends, and uses inverters (where a 1-hot design of course does not).



Further reading



  • O. Caesaro (1946). "The Relay Interpolator". In B. Randell: The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. ISBN 9783642961458. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-61812-3_20

  • Kunal Das, Arijit Dey, Dipannita Podder, Mallika De, and Debashis De (2015). "Quantum Dot Cellular Automata: A Promising Paradigm Beyond Moore". In Mourad Fakhfakh, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle, and Patrick Siarry: Computational Intelligence in Digital and Network Designs and Applications. Springer. ISBN 9783319200712. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20071-2_11.

  • William Keister (1951). "Circuits for calculation". The Design of Switching Circuits. Bell Telephone Laboratories series. Van Nostrand. pp. 462–472.





share|improve this answer


















  • 3





    In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

    – Luaan
    11 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9680%2fhow-does-a-biquinary-adder-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13














From a modern chip design perspective, the design of bi-quinary adders is quite simple. The addend inputs are each composed of two 1-hot signals, and the sum output is two 1-hot signals as well. This is by the nature of bi-quinary, where the quinary part is 1-hot by definition and the binary part is a 2-bit signal that is 1-hot by convention, being either 01 for "zero" or 10 for "five". The latter also being 1-hot makes things easier.



A simple AND-OR tree suffices for adding these. In a biquinary half-adder each one of the outputs in the sum is just a multiple-input OR of the ANDs of the various input combinations that result in that digit. For examples: C4 is a multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "four" in the quinary part. C00 is multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "zero" in the binary part.



In a biquinary full-adder there is not all that much added complexity. The carry-in simply left-rotates the quinary part of one of the addends, and any rotation off the left-hand end of that addend is an extra input to the tree that sums the binary parts, alongside any carry from the addition of the quinary parts.



That is the modern view, at any rate. It was not quite done that way back in the days of relays.



The AND-OR tree was a matrix of relays, each combination of signals opening up a specific path (to ground) for the appropriate 1-hot outputs.



Carry-in and carry-out were also a 1-hot pair of wires, 01 for "no carry" and 10 for "carry". This, in combination with the binary parts of each addend being 1-hot, meant that the "binary side" of the adder was also a simple exercise in AND-OR logic, and a relay matrix too. And, of course, so to was the rotation.



Caesaro 1946 has a diagram of the relay matrix for a 1-digit biquinary full-adder in the Bell Laboratories' Relay Interpolator. Das et al. 2015 has a more modern block diagram and truth tables for the various outputs. It places the carry-in handling logic closer to the final output, rotating an intermediate result instead of one of the addends, does not have 1-hot carry, does not have 1-hot binary parts for the addends, and uses inverters (where a 1-hot design of course does not).



Further reading



  • O. Caesaro (1946). "The Relay Interpolator". In B. Randell: The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. ISBN 9783642961458. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-61812-3_20

  • Kunal Das, Arijit Dey, Dipannita Podder, Mallika De, and Debashis De (2015). "Quantum Dot Cellular Automata: A Promising Paradigm Beyond Moore". In Mourad Fakhfakh, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle, and Patrick Siarry: Computational Intelligence in Digital and Network Designs and Applications. Springer. ISBN 9783319200712. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20071-2_11.

  • William Keister (1951). "Circuits for calculation". The Design of Switching Circuits. Bell Telephone Laboratories series. Van Nostrand. pp. 462–472.





share|improve this answer


















  • 3





    In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

    – Luaan
    11 hours ago















13














From a modern chip design perspective, the design of bi-quinary adders is quite simple. The addend inputs are each composed of two 1-hot signals, and the sum output is two 1-hot signals as well. This is by the nature of bi-quinary, where the quinary part is 1-hot by definition and the binary part is a 2-bit signal that is 1-hot by convention, being either 01 for "zero" or 10 for "five". The latter also being 1-hot makes things easier.



A simple AND-OR tree suffices for adding these. In a biquinary half-adder each one of the outputs in the sum is just a multiple-input OR of the ANDs of the various input combinations that result in that digit. For examples: C4 is a multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "four" in the quinary part. C00 is multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "zero" in the binary part.



In a biquinary full-adder there is not all that much added complexity. The carry-in simply left-rotates the quinary part of one of the addends, and any rotation off the left-hand end of that addend is an extra input to the tree that sums the binary parts, alongside any carry from the addition of the quinary parts.



That is the modern view, at any rate. It was not quite done that way back in the days of relays.



The AND-OR tree was a matrix of relays, each combination of signals opening up a specific path (to ground) for the appropriate 1-hot outputs.



Carry-in and carry-out were also a 1-hot pair of wires, 01 for "no carry" and 10 for "carry". This, in combination with the binary parts of each addend being 1-hot, meant that the "binary side" of the adder was also a simple exercise in AND-OR logic, and a relay matrix too. And, of course, so to was the rotation.



Caesaro 1946 has a diagram of the relay matrix for a 1-digit biquinary full-adder in the Bell Laboratories' Relay Interpolator. Das et al. 2015 has a more modern block diagram and truth tables for the various outputs. It places the carry-in handling logic closer to the final output, rotating an intermediate result instead of one of the addends, does not have 1-hot carry, does not have 1-hot binary parts for the addends, and uses inverters (where a 1-hot design of course does not).



Further reading



  • O. Caesaro (1946). "The Relay Interpolator". In B. Randell: The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. ISBN 9783642961458. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-61812-3_20

  • Kunal Das, Arijit Dey, Dipannita Podder, Mallika De, and Debashis De (2015). "Quantum Dot Cellular Automata: A Promising Paradigm Beyond Moore". In Mourad Fakhfakh, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle, and Patrick Siarry: Computational Intelligence in Digital and Network Designs and Applications. Springer. ISBN 9783319200712. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20071-2_11.

  • William Keister (1951). "Circuits for calculation". The Design of Switching Circuits. Bell Telephone Laboratories series. Van Nostrand. pp. 462–472.





share|improve this answer


















  • 3





    In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

    – Luaan
    11 hours ago













13












13








13







From a modern chip design perspective, the design of bi-quinary adders is quite simple. The addend inputs are each composed of two 1-hot signals, and the sum output is two 1-hot signals as well. This is by the nature of bi-quinary, where the quinary part is 1-hot by definition and the binary part is a 2-bit signal that is 1-hot by convention, being either 01 for "zero" or 10 for "five". The latter also being 1-hot makes things easier.



A simple AND-OR tree suffices for adding these. In a biquinary half-adder each one of the outputs in the sum is just a multiple-input OR of the ANDs of the various input combinations that result in that digit. For examples: C4 is a multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "four" in the quinary part. C00 is multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "zero" in the binary part.



In a biquinary full-adder there is not all that much added complexity. The carry-in simply left-rotates the quinary part of one of the addends, and any rotation off the left-hand end of that addend is an extra input to the tree that sums the binary parts, alongside any carry from the addition of the quinary parts.



That is the modern view, at any rate. It was not quite done that way back in the days of relays.



The AND-OR tree was a matrix of relays, each combination of signals opening up a specific path (to ground) for the appropriate 1-hot outputs.



Carry-in and carry-out were also a 1-hot pair of wires, 01 for "no carry" and 10 for "carry". This, in combination with the binary parts of each addend being 1-hot, meant that the "binary side" of the adder was also a simple exercise in AND-OR logic, and a relay matrix too. And, of course, so to was the rotation.



Caesaro 1946 has a diagram of the relay matrix for a 1-digit biquinary full-adder in the Bell Laboratories' Relay Interpolator. Das et al. 2015 has a more modern block diagram and truth tables for the various outputs. It places the carry-in handling logic closer to the final output, rotating an intermediate result instead of one of the addends, does not have 1-hot carry, does not have 1-hot binary parts for the addends, and uses inverters (where a 1-hot design of course does not).



Further reading



  • O. Caesaro (1946). "The Relay Interpolator". In B. Randell: The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. ISBN 9783642961458. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-61812-3_20

  • Kunal Das, Arijit Dey, Dipannita Podder, Mallika De, and Debashis De (2015). "Quantum Dot Cellular Automata: A Promising Paradigm Beyond Moore". In Mourad Fakhfakh, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle, and Patrick Siarry: Computational Intelligence in Digital and Network Designs and Applications. Springer. ISBN 9783319200712. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20071-2_11.

  • William Keister (1951). "Circuits for calculation". The Design of Switching Circuits. Bell Telephone Laboratories series. Van Nostrand. pp. 462–472.





share|improve this answer













From a modern chip design perspective, the design of bi-quinary adders is quite simple. The addend inputs are each composed of two 1-hot signals, and the sum output is two 1-hot signals as well. This is by the nature of bi-quinary, where the quinary part is 1-hot by definition and the binary part is a 2-bit signal that is 1-hot by convention, being either 01 for "zero" or 10 for "five". The latter also being 1-hot makes things easier.



A simple AND-OR tree suffices for adding these. In a biquinary half-adder each one of the outputs in the sum is just a multiple-input OR of the ANDs of the various input combinations that result in that digit. For examples: C4 is a multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "four" in the quinary part. C00 is multiple-input OR of ANDs of all of the bit combinations in A and B that result in a "zero" in the binary part.



In a biquinary full-adder there is not all that much added complexity. The carry-in simply left-rotates the quinary part of one of the addends, and any rotation off the left-hand end of that addend is an extra input to the tree that sums the binary parts, alongside any carry from the addition of the quinary parts.



That is the modern view, at any rate. It was not quite done that way back in the days of relays.



The AND-OR tree was a matrix of relays, each combination of signals opening up a specific path (to ground) for the appropriate 1-hot outputs.



Carry-in and carry-out were also a 1-hot pair of wires, 01 for "no carry" and 10 for "carry". This, in combination with the binary parts of each addend being 1-hot, meant that the "binary side" of the adder was also a simple exercise in AND-OR logic, and a relay matrix too. And, of course, so to was the rotation.



Caesaro 1946 has a diagram of the relay matrix for a 1-digit biquinary full-adder in the Bell Laboratories' Relay Interpolator. Das et al. 2015 has a more modern block diagram and truth tables for the various outputs. It places the carry-in handling logic closer to the final output, rotating an intermediate result instead of one of the addends, does not have 1-hot carry, does not have 1-hot binary parts for the addends, and uses inverters (where a 1-hot design of course does not).



Further reading



  • O. Caesaro (1946). "The Relay Interpolator". In B. Randell: The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. ISBN 9783642961458. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-61812-3_20

  • Kunal Das, Arijit Dey, Dipannita Podder, Mallika De, and Debashis De (2015). "Quantum Dot Cellular Automata: A Promising Paradigm Beyond Moore". In Mourad Fakhfakh, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle, and Patrick Siarry: Computational Intelligence in Digital and Network Designs and Applications. Springer. ISBN 9783319200712. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20071-2_11.

  • William Keister (1951). "Circuits for calculation". The Design of Switching Circuits. Bell Telephone Laboratories series. Van Nostrand. pp. 462–472.






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 13 hours ago









JdeBPJdeBP

47527




47527







  • 3





    In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

    – Luaan
    11 hours ago












  • 3





    In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

    – Luaan
    11 hours ago







3




3





In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

– Luaan
11 hours ago





In short, you use a "lookup table", just like when kids first learn addition. This is realized in hardware as a relay matrix. I'd still love to see how this was actually wired in something like the IBM 650, though - did they actually use the full 5x5 matrix (for the quinary part), or did they find some way to reduce it? How many relays (or tubes, in 650) did the full adder take? In any case, great answer, and especially the Keister reference goes very deep into the subject matter :)

– Luaan
11 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9680%2fhow-does-a-biquinary-adder-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-biquinary

Popular posts from this blog

Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god existsWord for having a definite opinion while simultaneously withholding judgment?What's the opposite of “newcomer? Is ”veteran" OK?What do you call an “atheist” who might believe in an afterlife?What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged?Word for someone who dismisses contrary opinions as irrational?Somone who thinks they are overly special/out of the ordinaryIs there a word, phrase or idiom for “a person who is incapable of thinking about the future”?The belief that a god is human-likeA word for a non-famous person/thing you have heard a lot aboutAdjective for a person who enjoys taking care of their appearance

What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?What was this set of RPG tools called?As a first-time DM should I let my players play complex character classes and roles?Nymph's Kiss and the RelationshipWhat was the name of this Cleric Prestige Class that shapes metal with its bare hands?Are the 3.5e Dragonlance books third party or official works?What's up with the domain Vile Darkness?What was this 80s book about RPGs?What was the name of this Werewolf band?What book had Rituals to “upgrade” animal companions to keep them viable at higher levels?What was this RPG that had rules for player-owned businesses?

2017 IndyCar Series Contents Series news Teams and drivers Schedule Season summary Footnotes References External links Navigation menu"INDYCAR: Initial 2018 bodywork concepts unveiled"the original"IndyCar confirms switch to Performance Friction brakes in 2017""AJ Foyt Racing will switch to Chevy"the original"Carlos Munoz, Conor Daly will drive for AJ Foyt Racing""Zach Veach's Indy 500 Debut Confirmed with Foyt""No mass exodus from Honda after Ganassi switch""Ex-F1 driver Sato joins Andretti Autosport for 2017 IndyCar season""IndyCar's Ryan Hunter-Reay, sponsor DHL paired through 2020""hhgregg and Andretti Autosport announce partnership for key races in 2016""INDYCAR: Rossi re-signs with Andretti"the original"McLaren Formula 1 - Fernando Alonso to race at Indy 500 with McLaren, Honda and Andretti Autosport""Shank will finally take part in Indy 500 with Harvey, Andretti | MotorSportsTalk""Andretti adds Jack Harvey to Indy 500 field""Ganassi switches to Honda power for 2017""INDYCAR: Chilton returns to Ganassi"the original"IndyCar silly season: Who's going where in 2017?""INDYCAR: Kanaan, NTT Data return to Ganassi"the original"Kimball to remain at Ganassi for 2017""Coyne confirms Bourdais for 2017 IndyCar season""Davison to sub for Bourdais in Indy 500"the original"Gutierrez confirmed for Detroit IndyCar debut""Gutierrez returns with Coyne for rest of 2017 season""Vautier to drive for Coyne at Texas"the original"INDYCAR: Coyne confirms Jones for 2017"the original"Pippa Mann returns to Coyne for Indy 500""Karam, Dreyer & Reinbold teaming up again for Indianapolis 500""Pigot to return to Ed Carpenter Racing""Hildebrand confirmed as full-time Ed Carpenter driver""Veach to replace injured Hildebrand at Barber"the originalNew Team Harding Racing Enters Chaves for 101st Indianapolis 500"Juncos Racing Announces Entry in 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 :: Juncos Racing""Juncos confirms Pigot for Indy 500""Saavedra confirmed in Juncos' second 500 entry"the original"Lazier confirms Indy 500 run after son's USF2000 debut"the original"Claman DeMelo to race for RLLR at Sonoma"the original"Rahal signs Servia and ace engineer for 2017""IndyCar: Aleshin returns with Schmidt"the original"Aleshin replaced by Saavedra for Toronto""Jack Harvey will pilot SPM No. 7 car at Watkins Glen, Sonoma""Jay Howard confirmed in Tony Stewart's supported SPM Indy entry""INDYCAR: Newgarden to wave the flag at Penske"the original"Pagenaud opts for No. 1 in 2017"the original"Penske confirms Newgarden for 2017""Montoya to stay with Team Penske in 2017""Target leaving IndyCar after 27 seasons with Chip Ganassi""Cavin: IndyCar could see complete driver/team shakeup in 2017""End of the road for KV Racing?""KV Racing confirms closure, equipment sold to Juncos""Juncos confirms IndyCar Series entry"the original"Juncos readies IndyCar program, aims for '17 500"the original"Harding Racing to add Texas, Pocono to schedule"the original"Sato signs with Andretti Autosport for 2017""INDYCAR: Aleshin in Doubt at SPM"the original"Long Beach notebook: JR Hildebrand breaks hand""Hildebrand cleared to return at Phoenix"the original"Bourdais to undergo surgery on multiple fractures""Aleshin loses Schmidt Peterson IndyCar ride""Saavedra in at SPM for Pocono, Gateway"the original"Bourdais to make return at Gateway"the original"The IndyCar Grand Prix no longer is sponsored by Angie's List""2017 IndyCar Series rulebook""2017 Verizon IndyCar Series Official Rulebook"Official websiteeeeee