Is $A\odot B\odot C = A\oplus B\oplus C$?

Question

(The notations used:

• $\oplus$ is XOR operator
• $\odot$ is XNOR operator)

I was solving a problem, where they asked which of the given options give equation for the difference of full subtractor. The circuit in the solution option was:

For me the first line:

$(x'y'+xy)'z'+(x'y'+xy)z$

looked more like $x\odot y\odot z$. But I know the difference of full subtractor is $x\oplus y\oplus z$. So I tried to evaluate both separately:

$x\oplus y\oplus z$
$= (x'y+xy')\oplus z$
$= (x'y+xy')'z+(x'y+xy')z'$
$= (x'y)'(xy)'z+(x'y+xy')z'$
$= (x+y')(x'+y)z+(x'y+xy')z'$
$\require{enclose}= \enclose{updiagonalstrike}{xx'z}+xyz+x'y'z+\enclose{updiagonalstrike}{yy'z}+x'yz'+xyz'$
$= xyz+x'y'z+x'yz'+xy'z'$ ...equation$(I)$

$x\odot y\odot z$
$=(x'y'+xy)\odot z$
$=(x'y'+xy)'z'+(x'y'+xy)z$ (This is same as first line in the equations given in the figure above)
$=(x'y')'(xy)'z'+(x'y'+xy)z$
$=(x+y)(x'+y')z'+(x'y'+xy)z$
$\require{enclose}=\enclose{updiagonalstrike}{xx'z}+xy'z'+x'yz'+\enclose{updiagonalstrike}{yy'z'}+x'y'z+xyz$
$=xy'z'+x'yz'+x'y'z+xyz$ ...equation$(II)$

To my eyes, both equations $(I)$ and $(II)$ looks the same. So I went to wolframalpha and prepared truth table for both of them.

$x\oplus y\oplus z$

$x\odot y\odot z$

And they correctly look complement of each other. Then why the given answer and my calculations equates $x\odot y\odot z$ with $x\oplus y\oplus z$? What stupidity I am doing here?

Answer 1

You're not doing anything wrong.

Negation commutes with XOR -- in other words, $(\neg x)\oplus y = \neg(x\oplus y) = x\oplus(\neg y)$. So when you change two XORs to XNORs you're adding two negations that can find each other and annihilate.

---

Wolfram Alpha seems to be using an unusual interpretation of $a\overline\veebar b \overline\veebar c$ where it interprets it as a three-input XNOR, apparently understood as $\overline{a\veebar b\veebar c}$, instead of as $(a\overline\veebar b)\overline\veebar c$ or $a\overline\veebar (b\overline\veebar c)$.

Compare Wolfram's interpretation of p XNOR q XNOR r with p XNOR (q XNOR r).

This arguably makes sense if you're thinking of digital logic -- asking for an $n$-input XNOR gate and getting the same as XOR if $n$ happens to be odd would not be terribly useful -- but is certainly confusing from an algebraic point of view.