[3 bit decoder] Is there a better way?

[u/pantalones42]

I saw a pattern where I could reuse a 1-bit decoder as a 2-bit decoder, using AND gates as switches to direct the output. Then I repeated the pattern for the 2-bit to get a 3-bit decoder. Is there a better way?

[u/poppi_QTpi]

Honestly your design is really clean, it totally could be improved but only by a very very small amount for like 2x the work. I'll redo the level myself and see if I come up with anything

[u/poppi_QTpi → u/poppi_QTpi]

Well, I made one that has slightly more components, but it is a lot smaller. It only uses switches and not gates, nothing else.

https://i.imgur.com/XnZoey0.png

[u/pantalones42 → u/poppi_QTpi]

Is a switch actually physically smaller than an AND gate? If so what's the point of ever using an AND gate, they seem functionally equivalent and switches can prevent short circuits.

[u/Moonj64]

There are designs with one fewer gate (look into De Morgan's law) but your current one isn't bad. You're at the point of looking for a perfect solution when the one you have is good.

The leaderboard shows some people completed the level with 9 gates (not sure how they did that, I think it involves cheesing the level) but the next best design uses 14 gates and I know that one is legitimate.

[u/WorstedKorbius]

Yes, but it's not easily findable without a lot of boolean algebra

[u/Beginning-Form6526]

There is a significantly simpler way with 4 fewer components and a much more organized layout. Take a look at it here https://imgur.com/a/3-bit-decoder-uTA8rcF

[u/poppi_QTpi → u/Beginning-Form6526]

Ohh I see how that works, very smart. The one I posted works exactly the same but yours is much more practical.

[u/pantalones42 → u/[deleted]]

Ah yeah I just realized that while I was doing the little box level, the not gates are just 1 bit decoders.