Related
If I have an encoder with 8 data inputs, what is its maximum number of outputs?
I know that an encoder is a combinational circuit that performs the reverse operation of a decoder. It has a maximum of 2^n input lines and ‘n’ output lines, hence it encodes the information from 2^n inputs into an n-bit code. Since I have 8 data input, the output will be 3, since 2^3 = 8. Is that the correct assumption?
Let's try to tease apart the concepts of one hot (decoded) lines and an encoding using a number of bits. Both these concepts are a way to represent information, but their form and typical usage is different.
One hot is a technique wherein at most one line is 1/true and all the other lines are 0/false. These one hot lines are not considered digits in a number, but rather individual signals or conditions (only one of which is can be true at any given time). This form is particularly useful in certain circuits, as each of the one hot lines can activate some other hardware. (A hardware lookup table (LUT), a RAM or ROM may use one-hot within its internal array indexing.)
Encoding is a technique where we use N lines as digits in an N-bit number, as would be found in a CPU register holding a number, or as we might write normal binary numbers in text. By contrast, in this form any of the N bits can be 1 (or 0).
Simple encoders & decoders translate between encoded form (N-bit numbers) and one hot form (2N lines).
... encoder ... has a maximum of 2^n input lines and ‘n’ output lines
In your statement, the 2^n input lines are in one hot form, while the output lines are normal numbers in binary (i.e. encoded).
Both the inputs (2^n lines) and the outputs (n lines) are capable of representing exactly 2^n different values! As a result, decode/encode is a 1:1 mapping, back & forth. (It would be an error to have multiple hots on the input side of such a decoder, and bad things would happen in a system that allowed that.)
In the formulas you're speaking to: 2N = V, and N = log2 ( V ) — N stands for number of bits (a bit is a binary digit), and V stands for number of values that can be represented in N bits.
(While the 2's in these formulas are for binary — substitute 2 with 10 for the same relationships for number of decimal digits vs. number of values those number of digits can represent/store/communicate).
In one hot form we need V number of lines, whereas in encoded form we need N lines (as bits/digits) to represent the same information (one of V different values).
Consider whether a number you're looking is a digit count (as with N) or a value count (as with V).
And bear in mind that in one hot form, we need one line for each possible value, V (whereas in encoded form we need N bits for V possible values).
A MIPS processor will feed the 6 bit opcode field into a lookup table of some sort, in order to determine which set of control signals to activate for any given instruction. (The opcode field is not one hot, but rather a bit field of N=6 bits).
These control signals are (also) not one hot, and the MIPS instruction decoder is not using a simple decoder, but rather a mapper that goes between encoded opcode values and effectively encoded control signals — this mapping is accomplished by lookup in a table.
These control signals are individual boolean values rather than as a set either one-hot or an encoded number. One hot may be used internally in indexing of this mapping. This mapping is basically an array lookup where the index is the opcode and each array element has all the individual control signal values appropriate its index.
(R-Type instructions all share a common opcode value, so when the R-Type opcode value is present, then additional lookup/mapping is done on the func bit field to generate the proper control signals.)
The documentation for both of these methods are both very generic wherever I look. I would like to know what exactly I'm looking at with the returned arrays I'm getting from each method.
For getByteTimeDomainData, what time period is covered with each pass? I believe most oscopes cover a 32 millisecond span for each pass. Is that what is covered here as well? For the actual element values themselves, the range seems to be 0 - 255. Is this equivalent to -1 - +1 volts?
For getByteFrequencyData the frequencies covered is based on the sampling rate, so each index is an actual frequency, but what about the actual element values themselves? Is there a dB range that is equivalent to the values returned in the returned array?
getByteTimeDomainData (and the newer getFloatTimeDomainData) return an array of the size you requested - its frequencyBinCount, which is calculated as half of the requested fftSize. That array is, of course, at the current sampleRate exposed on the AudioContext, so if it's the default 2048 fftSize, frequencyBinCount will be 1024, and if your device is running at 44.1kHz, that will equate to around 23ms of data.
The byte values do range between 0-255, and yes, that maps to -1 to +1, so 128 is zero. (It's not volts, but full-range unitless values.)
If you use getFloatFrequencyData, the values returned are in dB; if you use the Byte version, the values are mapped based on minDecibels/maxDecibels (see the minDecibels/maxDecibels description).
Mozilla 's documentation describes the difference between getFloatTimeDomainData and getFloatFrequencyData, which I summarize below. Mozilla docs reference the Web Audio
experiment ; the voice-change-o-matic. The voice-change-o-matic illustrates the conceptual difference to me (it only works in my Firefox browser; it does not work in my Chrome browser).
TimeDomain/getFloatTimeDomainData
TimeDomain functions are over some span of time.
We often visualize TimeDomain data using oscilloscopes.
In other words:
we visualize TimeDomain data with a line chart,
where the x-axis (aka the "original domain") is time
and the y axis is a measure of a signal (aka the "amplitude").
Change the voice-change-o-matic "visualizer setting" to Sinewave to
see getFloatTimeDomainData(...)
Frequency/getFloatFrequencyData
Frequency functions (GetByteFrequencyData) are at a point in time; i.e. right now; "the current frequency data"
We sometimes see these in mp3 players/ "winamp bargraph style" music players (aka "equalizer" visualizations).
In other words:
we visualize Frequency data with a bar graph
where the x-axis (aka "domain") are frequencies or frequency bands
and the y-axis is the strength of each frequency band
Change the voice-change-o-matic "visualizer setting" to Frequency bars to see getFloatFrequencyData(...)
Fourier Transform (aka Fast Fourier Transform/FFT)
Another way to think about "time domain vs frequency" is shown the diagram below, from Fast Fourier Transform wikipedia
getFloatTimeDomainData gives you the chart on on the top (x-axis is Time)
getFloatFrequencyData gives you the chart on the bottom (x-axis is Frequency)
a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) converts the Time Domain data into Frequency data, in other words, FFT converts the first chart to the second chart.
cwilso has it backwards.
the time data array is the longer one (fftSize), and the frequency data array is the shorter one (half that, frequencyBinCount).
fftSize of 2048 at the usual sample rate of 44.1kHz means each sample has 1/44100 duration, you have 2048 samples at hand, and thus are covering a duration of 2048/44100 seconds, which 46 milliseconds, not 23 milliseconds. The frequencyBinCount is indeed 1024, but that refers to the frequency domain (as the name suggests), not the time domain, and it the computation 1024/44100, in this context, is about as meaningful as adding your birth date to the fftSize.
A little math illustrating what's happening: Fourier transform is a 'vector space isomorphism', that is, a mapping going bijectively (i.e., reversible) between 2 vector spaces of the same dimension; the 'time domain' and the 'frequency domain.' The vector space dimension we have here (in both cases) is fftSize.
So where does the 'half' come from? The frequency domain coefficients 'count double'. Either because they 'actually are' complex numbers, or because you have the 'sin' and the 'cos' flavor. Or, because you have a 'magnitude' and a 'phase', which you'll understand if you know how complex numbers work. (Those are 3 ways to say the same in a different jargon, so to speak.)
I don't know why the API only gives us half of the relevant numbers when it comes to frequency - I can only guess. And my guess is that those are the 'magnitude' numbers, and the 'phase' numbers are thrown out. The reason that this is my guess is that in applications, magnitude is far more important than phase. Still, I'm quite surprised that the API throws out information, and I'd be glad if some expert who actually knows (and isn't guessing) can confirm that it's indeed the magnitude. Or - even better (I love to learn) - correct me.
An application I'm working on needs to store weights of the format X pounds, y.y ounces. The database is MySQL, but I imagine this is DB agnostic.
I can think of three ways to do this:
Convert the weight to decimal pounds and store in a single field. (5 lbs 6.2 oz = 5.33671875 lbs)
Convert the weight to decimal ounces and store in a single field. (5 lbs 6.2 oz = 86.2 oz)
Store the pounds portion as an integer and the ounces portion as a decimal, in two fields.
I'm thinking that #1 is not such a good idea, since decimal pounds will produce numbers of arbitrary precision, which would need to be stored as a float, which could lead to inaccuracies which are inherent in floating point numbers.
Is there a compelling reason to choose #2 over #3 or vise-versa?
TL;DR
Choose either option #1 or option #2—there's no difference between them. Don't use option #3, because it's awkward to work with.
You claim that there are inherent inaccuracies in floating point numbers. I think that this deserves to be explored a little first.
When deciding upon a numeral system for representing a number (whether on a piece of paper, in a computer circuit, or elsewhere), there are two separate issues to consider:
its basis; and
its format.
Pick a base, any base…
Limited by finite space, one cannot represent an arbitrary member of an infinite set. For example: no matter how much paper you buy or how small your handwriting, it'd always be possible to find an integer that won't fit in the given space (you could just keep appending extra digits until the paper runs out). So, with integers, we usually restrict our finite space to representing only those that fall within some particular interval—e.g. if we have space for the positive/negative sign and three digits, we might restrict ourselves to the interval [-999,+999].
Every non-empty interval contains an infinite set of real numbers. In other words, no matter what interval one takes over the real numbers—be it [-999,+999], [0,1], [0.000001,0.000002] or anything else—there is still an infinite set of reals within that interval (one need only keep appending (non-zero) fractional digits)! Therefore arbitrary real numbers must always be "rounded" to something that can be represented in finite space.
The set of real numbers that can be represented in finite space depends upon the numeral system that is used. In our (familiar) positional base-10 system, finite space will suffice for one-half (0.510) but not for one-third (0.33333…10); by contrast, in the (less familiar) positional base-9 system, it is the other way around (those same numbers are respectively 0.44444…9 and 0.39). The consequence of all this is that some numbers that can be represented using only a small amount of space in positional base-10 (and therefore appear to be very "round" to us humans), e.g. one-tenth, would actually require infinite binary circuits to be stored precisely (and therefore don't appear to be very "round" to our digital friends)! Notably, since 2 is a factor of 10, the same is not true in reverse: any number that can be represented with finite binary can also be represented with finite decimal.
We can't do any better for continuous quantities. Ultimately such quantities must use a finite representation in some numeral system: it's arbitrary whether that system happens to be easy on computer circuits, on human fingers, on something else or on nothing at all—whichever system is used, the value must be rounded and therefore it always results in "representation error".
In other words, even if one has a perfectly accurate measuring instrument (which is physically impossible), then any measurement it reports will already have been rounded to a number that happens to fit on its display (in whatever base it uses—typically decimal, for obvious reasons). So, "86.2 oz" is never actually "86.2 oz" but rather a representation of "something between 86.1500000... oz and 86.2499999... oz". (Actually, because in reality the instrument is imperfect, all we can ever really say is that we have some degree of confidence that the actual value falls within that interval—but that is definitely departing some way from the point here).
But we can do better for discrete quantities. Such values are not "arbitrary real numbers" and therefore none of the above applies to them: they can be represented exactly in the numeral system in which they were defined—and indeed, should be (as converting to another numeral system and truncating to a finite length would result in rounding to an inexact number). Computers can (inefficiently) handle such situations by representing the number as a string: e.g. consider ASCII or BCD encoding.
Apply a format…
Since it's a property of the numeral system's (somewhat arbitrary) basis, whether or not a value appears to be "round" has no bearing on its precision. That's a really important observation, which runs counter to many people's intuition (and it's the reason I spent so much time explaining numerical basis above).
Precision is instead determined by how many significant figures a representation has. We need a storage format that is capable of recording our values to at least as many significant figures as we consider them to be correct. Taking by way of example values that we consider to be correct when stated as 86.2 and 0.0000862, the two most common options are:
Fixed point, where the number of significant figures depends on magnitude: e.g. in fixed 5-decimal-point representation, our values would be stored as 86.20000 and 0.00009 (and therefore have 7 and 1 significant figures of precision respectively). In this example, precision has been lost in the latter value (and indeed, it wouldn't take much more for us to have been totally unable to represent anything of significance); and the former value stored false precision, which is a waste of our finite space (and indeed, it wouldn't take much more for the value to become so large that it overflows the storage capacity).
A common example of when this format might be appropriate is for an accounting system: monetary sums must usually be tracked to the penny irrespective of their magnitude (therefore less precision is required for small values, and more precision is required for large values). As it happens, currency is usually also considered to be discrete (pennies are indivisible), so this is also a good example of a situation where a particular basis (decimal for most modern currencies) is desirable to avoid the representation errors discussed above.
One usually implements fixed point storage by treating one's values as quotients over a common denominator and storing the numerator as an integer. In our example, the common denominator could be 105, so instead of 86.20000 and 0.00009 one would store the integers 8620000 and 9 and remember that they must be divided by 100000.
Floating point, where the number of significant figures is constant irrespective of magnitude: e.g. in 5-significant-figure decimal representation, our values would be stored as 86.200 and 0.000086200 (and, by definition, have 5 significant figures of precision both times). In this example, both values have been stored without any loss of precision; and they both also have the same amount of false precision, which is less wasteful (and we can therefore use our finite space to represent a far greater range of values—both large and small).
A common example of when this format might be appropriate is for recording any real world measurements: the precision of measuring instruments (which all suffer from both systematic and random errors) is fairly constant irrespective of scale so, given sufficient significant figures (typically around 3 or 4 digits), absolutely no precision is lost even if a change of base resulted in rounding to a different number.
One usually implements floating point storage by treating one's values as integer significands with integer exponents. In our example, the significand could be 86200 for both values whereupon the (base-10) exponents would be -4 and -9 respectively.
But how precise are the floating point storage formats used by our computers?
An IEEE754 single precision (binary32) floating point number has 24 bits, or log10(224) (over 7) digits, of significance—i.e. it has a tolerance of less than ±0.000006%. In other words, it is more precise than saying "86.20000".
An IEEE754 double precision (binary64) floating point number has 53 bits, or log10(253) (almost 16) digits, of significance—i.e. it has a tolerance of just over ±0.00000000000001%. In other words, it is more precise than saying "86.2000000000000".
The most important thing to realise is that these formats are, respectively, over ten thousand and over one trillion times more precise than saying "86.2"—even though exact conversions of the binary back into decimal happens to include erroneous false precision (which we must ignore: more on this shortly)!
Notice also that both fixed and floating point formats will result in loss of precision when a value is known more precisely than the format supports. Such rounding errors can propagate in arithmetic operations to yield apparently erroneous results (which no doubt explains your reference to the "inherent inaccuracies" of floating point numbers): for example, 1⁄3 × 3000 in 5-place fixed point would yield 999.99000 rather than 1000.00000; and 1⁄7 − 7⁄50 in 5-significant figure floating point would yield 0.0028600 rather than 0.0028571.
The field of numerical analysis is dedicated to understanding these effects, but it is important to realise that any usable system (even performing calculations in your head) is vulnerable to such problems because no method of calculation that is guaranteed to terminate can ever offer infinite precision: consider, for example, how to calculate the area of a circle—there will necessarily be loss of precision in the value used for π, which will propagate into the result.
Conclusion
Real world measurements should use binary floating point: it's fast, compact, extremely precise and no worse than anything else (including the decimal version from which you started). Since MySQL's floating-point datatypes are IEEE754, this is exactly what they offer.
Currency applications should use denary fixed point: whilst it's slow and wastes memory, it ensures both that values are not rounded to inexact quantities and that pennies are not lost on large monetary sums. Since MySQL's fixed-point datatypes are BCD-encoded strings, this is exactly what they offer.
Finally, bear in mind that programming languages usually represent fractional values using binary floating-point types: so if your database stores values in another format, you need to be careful how they are brought into your application or else they may get converted (with all the ensuing issues that entails) at the interface.
Which option is best in this case?
Hopefully I've convinced you that your values can safely (and should) be stored in floating point types without worrying too much about any "inaccuracies"? Remember, they're more precise than your flimsy 3-significant-digit decimal representation ever was: you just have to ignore false precision (but one must always do that anyway, even if using a fixed-point decimal format).
As for your question: choose either option 1 or 2 over option 3—it makes comparisons easier (for example, to find the maximal mass, one could just use MAX(mass), whereas to do it efficiently across two columns would require some nesting).
Between those two, it doesn’t matter which one chooses—floating point numbers are stored with a constant number of significant bits irrespective of their scale.
Furthermore, whilst in the general case it could happen that some values are rounded to binary numbers that are closer to their original decimal representation using option 1 whilst simultaneously others are rounded to binary numbers that are closer to their original decimal representation using option 2, as we shall shortly see such representation errors only manifest within the false precision that should always be ignored.
However, in this case, because it happens that there are 16 ounces to 1 pound (and 16 is a power of 2), the relative differences between original decimal values and stored binary numbers using the two approaches is identical:
5.387510 (not 5.3367187510 as stated in your question) would be stored in a binary32 float as 101.0110001100110011001102 (which is 5.3874998092651367187510): this is 0.0000036% from the original value (but, as discussed above, the "original value" was already a pretty lousy representation of the physical quantity it represents).
Knowing that a binary32 float stores only 7 decimal digits of precision, our compiler knows for certain that everything from the 8th digit onwards is definitely false precision and therefore must be ignored in every case—thus, provided that our input value didn't require more precision than that (and if it did, binary32 was obviously the wrong choice of format), this guarantees a return to a decimal value that looks just as round as that from which we started: 5.38750010. However, we should really apply domain knowledge at this point (as we should with any storage format) to discard any further false precision that might exist, such as those two trailing zeroes.
86.210 would be stored in a binary32 float as 1010110.001100110011001102 (which is 86.199996948242187510): this is also 0.0000036% from the original value. As before, we then ignore false precision to return to our original input.
Notice how the binary representations of the numbers are identical, except for the placement of the radix point (which is four bits apart):
101.0110 00110011001100110
101 0110.00110011001100110
This is because 5.3875 × 24 = 86.2.
As an aside: being European (albeit British), I also have a strong aversion to imperial units of measurement—handling values of different scales is just so messy. I'd almost certainly store masses in SI units (e.g. kilograms or grams) and then perform conversions to imperial units as required within the presentation layer of my application. Plus rigidly adhering to SI units might one day save you from losing $125m.
I’d be tempted to store it in a metric unit, as they tend to be simple decimals and not complex values like pounds and ounces. That way, you can just store the one value (i.e. 103.25 kg) rather than the pounds–ounces equivalent, and it’s easier to perform conversions.
This is something I’ve dealt with in the past. I do a lot of work on pro wrestling and mixed martial arts (MMA) websites where fighters’ heights and weights need to be recorded. They tend to be displayed as feet and inches and pounds and ounces, but I still store the values in their centimetres and kilogram equivalents, and then do the conversion when displaying on the site.
First, I had not known about how floating point numbers were inaccurate - thankfully a search latter helps me understand: Floating Point Inaccuracy Examples
I would fully agree with #eggyal - keep the data in a single format in a single column. This allows you to expose it to the application and let the application deal with the presentation of it - be it in lbs/oz, rounded up lbs, whatever.
The database should keep the raw data while the presentation layer dictates the layout.
You can use decimal data type for weight column.
decimal('weight', 8, 2); // precision = 8, scale = 2
Storage size:
Precision 1-9 5 Bytes
Precision 10-19 9 Bytes
Precision 20-28 13 Bytes
Precision 29-38 17 Bytes
What is the most optimal way to find repetition in a infinite sequence of integers?
i.e. if in the infinite sequence the number '5' appears twice then we will return 'false' the first time and 'true' the second time.
In the end what we need is a function that returns 'true' if the integer appeared before and 'false' if the function received the integer the first time.
If there are two solutions, one is space-wise and the second is time-wise, then mention both.
I will write my solution in the answers, but I don't think it is the optimal one.
edit: Please don't assume the trivial cases (i.e. no repetitions, a constantly rising sequence). What interests me is how to reduce the space complexity of the non-trivial case (random numbers with repetitions).
I'd use the following approach:
Use a hash table as your datastructure. For every number read, store it in your datastructure. If it's already stored before you found a repetition.
If n is the number of elements in the sequence from start to the repetition, then this only requires O(n) time and space. Time complexity is optimal, as you need to at least read the input sequence's elements up to the repetition point.
How long of a sequence are we talking (before the repetition occurs)? Is a repetition even guaranteed at all? For extreme cases the space complexity might become problematic. But to improve it you will probably need to know more structural information on your sequence.
Update: If the sequence is as you say very long with seldom repetitions and you have to cut down on the space requirement, then you might (given sufficient structural information on the sequence) be able to cut down the space cost.
As an example: let's say you know that your infinite sequence has a general tendency to return numbers that fit within the current range of witnessed min-max numbers. Then you will eventually have whole intervals that have already been contained in the sequence. In that case you can save space by storing such intervals instead of all the elements contained within it.
A BitSet for int values (2^32 numbers) would consume 512Mb. This may be ok if the BitSets are allocated not to often, fast enough and the mem is available.
An alternative are compressed BitSets that work best for sparse BitSets.
Actually, if the max number of values is infinite, you can use any lossless compression algorithm for a monochrome bitmap. IF you imagine a square with at least as many pixels as the number of possible values, you can map each value to a pixel (with a few to spare). Then you can represent white as the pixels that appeared and black for the others and use any compression algorithm if space is at a premium (that is certainly a problem that has been studied)
You can also store blocks. The worst case is the same in space O(n) but for that worst case you need that the number appeared have exactly 1 in between them. Once more numbers appear, then the storage will decrease:
I will write pseudocode and I will use a List, but you can always use a different structure
List changes // global
boolean addNumber(int number):
boolean appeared = false
it = changes.begin()
while it.hasNext():
if it.get() < number:
appeared != appeared
it = it.next()
else if it.get() == number:
if !appeared: return true
if it.next().get() == number + 1
it.next().remove() // Join 2 blocks
else
it.insertAfter(number + 1) // Insert split and create 2 blocks
it.remove()
return false
else: // it.get() > number
if appeared: return true
it.insertBefore(number)
if it.get() == number + 1:
it.remove() // Extend next block
else:
it.insertBefore(number + 1)
}
return false
}
What this code is the following: it stores a list of blocks. For each number that you add, it iterates over the list storing blocks of numbers that appeared and numbers that didn't. Let me illustrate with an example; I will add [) to illustrate which numbers in the block, the first number is included, the last is not.In the pseudocode it is replaced by the boolean appeared. For instance, if you get the 5, 9, 6, 8, 7 (in this order) you will have the following sequences after each function:
[5,6)
[5,6),[9,10)
[5,7),[9,10)
[5,7),[8,10)
[5,10)
In the last value you keep a block of 5 numbers with only 2.
Return TRUE
If the sequence is infinite then there will be repetition of every conceivable pattern.
If what you want to know is the first place in the sequence when there is a repeated digit that's another matter, but there's some difference between your question and your example.
Well, it seems obvious that in any solution we'll need to save the numbers that already appeared, so space wise we will always have a worst-case of O(N) where N<=possible numbers with the word size of our number type (i.e. 2^32 for C# int) - this is problematic over a long time if the sequence is really infinite/rarely repeats itself.
For saving the numbers that already appeared I would use an hash table and then check it each time I receive a new number.
I need to make an application for creating logic circuits and seeing the results. This is primarily for use in A-Level (UK, 16-18 year olds generally) computing courses.
Ive never made any applications like this, so am not sure on the best design for storing the circuit and evaluating the results (at a resomable speed, say 100Hz on a 1.6Ghz single core computer).
Rather than have the circuit built from the basic gates (and, or, nand, etc) I want to allow these gates to be used to make "chips" which can then be used within other circuits (eg you might want to make a 8bit register chip, or a 16bit adder).
The problem is that the number of gates increases massively with such circuits, such that if the simulation worked on each individual gate it would have 1000's of gates to simulate, so I need to simplify these components that can be placed in a circuit so they can be simulated quickly.
I thought about generating a truth table for each component, then simulation could use a lookup table to find the outputs for a given input. The problem occurred to me though that the size of such tables increase massively with inputs. If a chip had 32 inputs, then the truth table needs 2^32 rows. This uses a massive amount of memory in many cases more than there is to use so isn't practical for non-trivial components, it also wont work with chips that can store their state (eg registers) since they cant be represented as a simply table of inputs and outputs.
I know I could just hardcode things like register chips, however since this is for educational purposes I want it so that people can make their own components as well as view and edit the implementations for standard ones. I considered allowing such components to be created and edited using code (eg dlls or a scripting language), so that an adder for example could be represented as "output = inputA + inputB" however that assumes that the students have done enough programming in the given language to be able to understand and write such plugins to mimic the results of their circuit which is likly to not be the case...
Is there some other way to take a boolean logic circuit and simplify it automatically so that the simulation can determine the outputs of a component quickly?
As for storing the components I was thinking of storing some kind of tree structure, such that each component is evaluated once all components that link to its inputs are evaluated.
eg consider: A.B + C
The simulator would first evaluate the AND gate, and then evaluate the OR gate using the output of the AND gate and C.
However it just occurred to me that in cases where the outputs link back round to the inputs, will cause a deadlock because there inputs will never all be evaluated...How can I overcome this, since the program can only evaluate one gate at a time?
Have you looked at Richard Bowles's simulator?
You're not the first person to want to build their own circuit simulator ;-).
My suggestion is to settle on a minimal set of primitives. When I began mine (which I plan to resume one of these days...) I had two primitives:
Source: zero inputs, one output that's always 1.
Transistor: two inputs A and B, one output that's A and not B.
Obviously I'm misusing the terminology a bit, not to mention neglecting the niceties of electronics. On the second point I recommend abstracting to wires that carry 1s and 0s like I did. I had a lot of fun drawing diagrams of gates and adders from these. When you can assemble them into circuits and draw a box round the set (with inputs and outputs) you can start building bigger things like multipliers.
If you want anything with loops you need to incorporate some kind of delay -- so each component needs to store the state of its outputs. On every cycle you update all the new states from the current states of the upstream components.
Edit Regarding your concerns on scalability, how about defaulting to the first principles method of simulating each component in terms of its state and upstream neighbours, but provide ways of optimising subcircuits:
If you have a subcircuit S with inputs A[m] with m < 8 (say, giving a maximum of 256 rows) and outputs B[n] and no loops, generate the truth table for S and use that. This could be done automatically for identified subcircuits (and reused if the subcircuit appears more than once) or by choice.
If you have a subcircuit with loops, you may still be able to generate a truth table. There are fixed-point finding methods which can help here.
If your subcircuit has delays (and they are significant to the enclosing circuit) the truth table can incorporate state columns. E.g. if the subcircuit has input A, inner state B, and output C, where C <- A and B, B <- A, the truth table could be:
A B | B C
0 0 | 0 0
0 1 | 0 0
1 0 | 1 0
1 1 | 1 1
If you have a subcircuit that the user asserts implements a particular known pattern such as "adder", provide an option for using a hard-coded implementation for updating that subcircuit instead of by simulating its inner parts.
When I made a circuit emulator (sadly, also incomplete and also unreleased), here's how I handled loops:
Each circuit element stores its boolean value
When an element "E0" changes its value, it notifies (via the observer pattern) all who depend on it
Each observing element evaluates its new value and does likewise
When the E0 change occurs, a level-1 list is kept of all elements affected. If an element already appears on this list, it gets remembered in a new level-2 list but doesn't continue to notify its observers. When the sequence which E0 began has stopped notifying new elements, the next queue level is handled. Ie: the sequence is followed and completed for the first element added to level-2, then the next added to level-2, etc. until all of level-x is complete, then you move to level-(x+1)
This is in no way complete. If you ever have multiple oscillators doing infinite loops, then no matter what order you take them in, one could prevent the other from ever getting its turn. My next goal was to alleviate this by limiting steps with clock-based sync'ing instead of cascading combinatorials, but I never got this far in my project.
You might want to take a look at the From Nand To Tetris in 12 steps course software. There is a video talking about it on youtube.
The course page is at: http://www1.idc.ac.il/tecs/
If you can disallow loops (outputs linking back to inputs), then you can significantly simplify the problem. In that case, for every input there will be exactly one definite output. Cycles however can make the output undecideable (or rather, constantly changing).
Evaluating a circuit without loops should be easy - just use the BFS algorithm with "junctions" (connections between logic gates) as the items in the list. Start off with all the inputs to all the gates in an "undefined" state. As soon as a gate has all inputs "defined" (either 1 or 0), calculate its output and add its output junctions to the BFS list. This way you only have to evaluate each gate and each junction once.
If there are loops, the same algorithm can be used, but the circuit can be built in such a way that it never comes to a "rest" and some junctions are always changing between 1 and 0.
OOps, actually, this algorithm can't be used in this case because the looped gates (and gates depending on them) would forever stay as "undefined".
You could introduce them to the concept of Karnaugh maps, which would help them simplify truth values for themselves.
You could hard code all the common ones. Then allow them to build their own out of the hard coded ones (which would include low level gates), which would be evaluated by evaluating each sub-component. Finally, if one of their "chips" has less than X inputs/outputs, you could "optimize" it into a lookup table. Maybe detect how common it is and only do this for the most used Y chips? This way you have a good speed/space tradeoff.
You could always JIT compile the circuits...
As I haven't really thought about it, I'm not really sure what approach I'd take.. but it would possibly be a hybrid method and I'd definitely hard code popular "chips" in too.
When I was playing around making a "digital circuit" simulation environment, I had each defined circuit (a basic gate, a mux, a demux and a couple of other primitives) associated with a transfer function (that is, a function that computes all outputs, based on the present inputs), an "agenda" structure (basically a linked list of "when to activate a specific transfer function), virtual wires and a global clock.
I arbitrarily set the wires to hard-modify the inputs whenever the output changed and the act of changing an input on any circuit to schedule a transfer function to be called after the gate delay. With this at hand, I could accommodate both clocked and unclocked circuit elements (a clocked element is set to have its transfer function run at "next clock transition, plus gate delay", any unclocked element just depends on the gate delay).
Never really got around to build a GUI for it, so I've never released the code.