Arpad, It is true that the current spec says "| If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True", and you take use of this statement in your flow diagrams, so they are consistent and that is why I was wrong. But it is also true that in the definition of Use_Init_Output, it's value is only used when GetWave_Exists is True, and there is not logic in the IBIS 5.0 that uses the value of Use_Init_Output when GetWave_Exists is Flase, other then saying that it cannot be set to False. This has always been a pet peeve of mine that Use_Init_Output exists at all. The fact of the matter is statistical simulation doe not use it at all, and that it has one meaning when GetWave_Exist is True and no meaning when GetWave_Exists is False. Alas, it is what it is and I apologize again for my last feeble gasp at trying to clean this up. Please be clear, that the intent of Use_Init_Output was when the equalization is reported by AMI_Init was not included in the equalization added by AMI_GetWave.. Is the output of AMI_Init suitable for statistical simulation? What equalization is not included in AMI_Init? And in either case, why do we expect model developers to be able to create these complex models, and yet not be able to save the Impulse Response of the equalization from the Init call and implement a well-documented Overlap and Save method to include the equalization in the AMI_GetWave call? All would have been good if BIRD 107 just stated what it did about Use_Init_Output except that its default value should be False, and that if GetWave_Exists is True then Use_Init_Output must be False. Then the default value (False) would mean that the output of AMI_Init would be suitable for statistical simulation, and that the output of AMI_GetWave would contain all of the models equalization. It was only when Mike Steinberger explained how we could use de-convolution to get the information we need to process models that has Use_Init_Output True, that I relented on the addition of Use_Init_Output, and I had the mistaken hope that all in the IBS-ATM committee would repair this differently. Walter Walter Katz 303.449-2308 Mobile 720.333-1107 wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx www.sisoft.com -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:02 PM To: IBIS-ATM Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: A Boolean logic excersise, Mia Culpa, You are right Thanks Walter, I am glad we are in agreement. You got me worried on this one a little... However, I am not sure what you mean by: It is an unfortunate statement of fact that Use_Init_Output only has meaning when GetWave_Exists is "True",... I wanted to write about this too after the meeting, but decided to take it one step at the time. Recall, the current specification already has a rule that: | If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True. In the previous email I showed how this is equivalent to say that when GetWave_Exists = F Use_Init_Output must be T. In addition, we all agreed on a new rule (to fix problems in the spec) which says that: For statistical simulations Use_Init_Output is ignored and is treated as if it was TRUE. Based on this, your suggestion to ignore Use_Init_Output every time when GetWave_Exists is False is equivalent to what I am showing in the current flow diagram (7j) including the three notes repeated on the bottom of each slide and what I attempted to write up in the BIRD for Section 2.3 (i.e. the text version of the flow). So this argument is somewhat academic or philosophical. I would prefer to write the spec in a way that makes it easier to read and understand for everyone, including the new readers. If everyone agrees to word it your way, I will make (yet) another version of my flow diagram drawing, in which the Use_Init_Output value is grayed out for all GetWave_Exists=F combinations, change the value of Use_Init_Output from "T" to "X" for all those cases, and I would also remove the Use_Init_Output from the sentence in Note #2. But I want to warn everyone, that making these changes will add at least one more week to the process of finishing this BIRD, because we will have to review the flow diagram drawings again, and I would have to make the corresponding changes to the BIRD text in this area. I personally don't think this is worth our time, but I will let the members of the ATM Task Group decide... Please let me know ASAP! Thanks, Arpad ===================================================================== -----Original Message----- From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:38 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] A Boolean logic excersise, Mia Culpa, You are right Arpad, I am sorry, you are definitely correct. It is an unfortunate statement of fact that Use_Init_Output only has meaning when GetWave_Exists is "True", but the BIRD is explicit as to how it needs to be set when GetWave_Exists is False. SO based on this and the excellent work you did in combining the flows, I recommend we go with what you have. We still need to review the other definitions that changed, but I hope we can move on. Again, I apologize for the confusion. Walter Walter Katz 303.449-2308 Mobile 720.333-1107 wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx www.sisoft.com -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:59 PM To: IBIS-ATM Subject: [ibis-macro] A Boolean logic excersise Hello AMI experts, The discussion over the AMI Booleans at the end of today's ATM teleconference prompted me to write this message. First, two quotes from the existing IBIS specification. Page 144 says: | Note that if Init_Returns_Impulse | is set to "False", then Getwave_Exists MUST be set to "True". and page 145 says: | If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True. To make my notation simpler, I will abbreviate the names of the Booleans to GWE for GetWave_Exists, UIO for Use_Init_Output and IRI for Init_Returns_Impulse. Also, a "===" indicates "must be". So this is what the current spec says today: If IRI = F then GWE === T If UIO = F then GWE === T From these we can write the following truth tables: -------- IRI GWE -------- F T T T T F -------- -------- UIO GWE -------- F T T T T F -------- From this we can see that when GWE = F the only possible value for UIO or IRI is T. So the sentence I put into my BIRD draft: |* Note that if GetWave_Exists |* is set to "False", then both Use_Init_Output and |* Init_Returns_Impulse MUST be set to "True". is in complete agreement with the existing specification, and does NOT introduce any new features. The only question that remains comes from the fact that UIO is not a required parameter. However, the current specification also states on p. 145 that | Use_Init_Output is optional. The default value for this | parameter is "True". Which means that if UIO is not present, it is the same thing as if it was present with a value of T. This condition will still satisfy the rule I wrote into the BIRD draft. So I would like to see proof for why the above statement in my BIRD draft changes anything in the existing spec or introduces any new features to it. Any comments? (Quick replies would be appreciated). Thanks, Arpad =================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: unsubscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: unsubscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: unsubscribe