01-27-2016, 07:14 PM
I have to agree with apuly here.
The complexity of a circuit is not the only thing, which divides a good builder from a student. An example to prove this point are Carry-Save-Adders.
In my opinion the trial should be split in two halves:
One is of course the building part, which tests the building ability of the user.
Focus here is on "building abilities" and not architecture preferences.
20 repeaters, which aren't needed or something like a giant ball of yarn could be sorted out here.
The genius controls the chaos, but there are limits!
The second - and more important - part of the trial would consist of the examiner asking questions concerning the build of the user first, but also basic and more advanced methods.
What I mean by those is for example the background of binary addition, since it is the first step to (2's complement) subtraction and look ahead addition.
Too often I see people, who only keep in mind how to build circuits, but have absolutely no clue of why it works.
IMO there is no improvement in sight working with this method.
Beeing able to build stuff and beeing able to build it fast is one side, but it is far more important to understand what's going on inside the circuit you just pasted next to you.
After all this is what the essence of science is - understanding. And that's how we introduce ourselves to all the 2x2 pistondoor builders.
I can't even keep up with counting how often I posted this kind of comment ._.
The complexity of a circuit is not the only thing, which divides a good builder from a student. An example to prove this point are Carry-Save-Adders.
In my opinion the trial should be split in two halves:
One is of course the building part, which tests the building ability of the user.
Focus here is on "building abilities" and not architecture preferences.
20 repeaters, which aren't needed or something like a giant ball of yarn could be sorted out here.
The genius controls the chaos, but there are limits!
The second - and more important - part of the trial would consist of the examiner asking questions concerning the build of the user first, but also basic and more advanced methods.
What I mean by those is for example the background of binary addition, since it is the first step to (2's complement) subtraction and look ahead addition.
Too often I see people, who only keep in mind how to build circuits, but have absolutely no clue of why it works.
IMO there is no improvement in sight working with this method.
Beeing able to build stuff and beeing able to build it fast is one side, but it is far more important to understand what's going on inside the circuit you just pasted next to you.
After all this is what the essence of science is - understanding. And that's how we introduce ourselves to all the 2x2 pistondoor builders.
I can't even keep up with counting how often I posted this kind of comment ._.