HackerPapers

arXiv:1908.07299cs.AR

Comparing ternary and binary adders and multipliers

Daniel Etiemble

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

While many papers have proposed implementations of ternary adders and ternary multipliers, no comparisons have generally been done with the corresponding binary ones. We compare the implementations of binary and ternary adders and multipliers with the same computing capability according to the basic blocks that are 1-bit and 1-trit adders and 1-bit and 1-trit multipliers. Then we compare the complexity of these basic blocks by using the same CNTFET technology to evaluate the overall complexity of N-bit adders and M-trit adders on one side, and NxN bit multipliers and MxM trits multipliers with M = N/IR (IR = log(3)/log(2) is the information ratio). While ternary adders and multipliers have less input and output connections and use less basic building blocks, the complexity of the ternary building blocks is too high and the ternary adders and multipliers cannot compete with the binary ones.

arXiv comments
7 pages, 11 figures
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.ARHardware Architecture

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Feb 2020 to Feb 2020.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • > Balanced Ternary can be mathematically elegant way to represent numbers When discussing ternary computation, I always see people talking about representation and storage. In these aspects, ternary can indeed be more elegant and efficient than binary. I never see any discussion…

      moefhView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.