# Is the diagram for 'bit' on page 43 the wrong way around?

7 messages
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Is the diagram for 'bit' on page 43 the wrong way around?

 The moment I came across the 'bit' diagram on page 43 (chapter 3) it struck me as incorrect. As no one has mentioned it I am probable wrong, but according to page 21 (chapter 1) on a Mux a is the top pin and b is the bottom pin. When sel is '0' then out = a, when sel = '1' then out = b. If we apply that logic to the 'bit' diagram then setting load to '1' will return te stored value and not load the value specified in 'in'. I verified my logic with the hardware simulator. Please tell me why I am wrong
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Is the diagram for 'bit' on page 43 the wrong way around?

 Your opinion is valid. But the diagram of the Mux shown on page 43 is just an abstraction, and doesn't exactly correspond to the one you built. That said, consider the Mux shown on page 43 as "flipped upside down" with the load/sel signal on top, rather than on the bottom as shown on page 21 fig. 1.9
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Is the diagram for 'bit' on page 43 the wrong way around?

 That is one of the things I considered. Is there some kind of convention where the location of the sel 'line' determines which pin is a?
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Is the diagram for 'bit' on page 43 the wrong way around?

 Administrator Industrial schematics usually use a symbol like this for multiplexers. (In this case, an 8-to-1 mux.) When a "shape" symbol is used, it is usually a trapezoid. The sel can be on either top or bottom. The a or D0 input is usually at the top. The inputs are often labeled to avoid confusion. For wider than 2-to-1 muxes, it is common to only label the a or D0 input. This is the TECS Mux8Way16 symbol I use. The '/' indicates a bus and its width. --Mark
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Is the diagram for 'bit' on page 43 the wrong way around?

 Thanks Mark, That is the sequence I have been using in my head, which is why I was so confused by the 'bit' diagram. I kept re-reading the part about (t-1) and I thought I was just missing something. Personally I think the diagram in the book / PDF needs to be updated, but as I am the first person to publicly complain about this it doesn't appear to be a major issue. Loving this course BTW. I have been developing software for 28 years (since I was 12), but I always wondered how things worked at the sub-assembler level.