I was designing an alarm for the green night (the last night during camp when jokes are made). I found that for one R in my circuit if it is going to 0 or to infinity the maximum length of 0.05mm wire to be broken shortens. So somewhere in the middle there should be the optimum (giving the maximum length). I was able to find it only by method of successive approximations. I didn’t needed to have this wire be 30 km length but I was wondering where is the optimum. Being in this design stage I went to school and heard about derivatives for the first time.
First, we deal-with/use Integration/differentiation every day (how far did we go? what speed were we driving…)
My ears perk-up when I hear anything related to Math (I love math!). Thus, you may find this either a 10 second challenge or an all-day head puzzler…
- divide by 0.
and some extra chars needed by forum.
You win the challenge!
Apparently not anytime soon (!425). While the old file format had supported it, it got knowingly broken with the new file format implementation in KiCad 6. Use Altium instead.
To return to the original question: using DeMorgan equivalents outside logic symbols.
'I do this on a “need to” or “nice to have” basis.
The mosr comprehensive example is probably single opamps without a separate power unit.
For those I generate a DeMorgan equivalent with swapped inputs. This leaves the rest of the symbol including power pins intact. Very useful and time saving.
Fpr logic design, I use DeMorgan equivalents all the time (just as suppliers like TI and Nexperia). It results in very clean schematics, ahowing signal function and signal assertion level separately.
If someone wants to pursue this, I can recommend:
William I. Fletcher, “An Engineering Approach to Digital Design”. Reckon with $100, fully worth the money.
Not sure what you mean?
My key question/takeaway: If DeMorgan alternates are based on logic equations, isn’t it something of a misnomer to call my two BAW56 symbols DeMorgan variants? Yes I am being nitpicky, but I think we are really getting at any alternate symbols representing the same device? So if we are just drawing op amp power pins differently or repositioning the two diodes in a common anode symbol, that is an equivalent symbol but is NOT a DeMorgan equivalent, right?
Note: I do power and analog but try to avoid logic in my designs. Does that make me illogical?
Actually I recently did use a 74HC4020, a 74HC138, and an NL7SZ97 so this business of avoiding logic is only an un-fulfilled aspiration.
Right!
Two diodes with anodes common and a resistor tied to +, with respect to the cathodes, will have a DeMorgan equivalent, but two diodes with anodes common are just two diodes with anodes common however they are drawn.
Wait, maybe De Morgan did tinker with diodes in his spare time, and the historians just didn’t know. 
ML9104 writes about opamp symbol with power pins integrated. If you mirror such symbol along X to have + and - inputs swapped you get + supply at bottom and - at top. To avoid this he just makes DeMorgan (the name of flag in symbol definition) with + and - swapped.
So, if I understand correctly: Altium supports alternate symbol representations in general (not limited to De Morgan logic equivalents)?
And for KiCad there is code ready to merge, but the KiCad developer team refuses to have this new code and want to have only the De Morgan special case?
I’m not sure I quite understand why one would refuse alternate symbol representation ability, especially when code is already offered. (I could imagine that someone would find it tedious to implement if there is no code to begin with.)
He died in 1871. Did they have diodes with which to tinker in those days?
Ah you’re no fun. 
If I remember correctly, it’s limited to 100 alternative shapes in AD while KiCad 5’s internal structure and file format would have supported more (without changes). My understanding is that some KiCad developers felt it would complicate internals too much for themselves when they’ll eventually move to real databases for symbols and implement more DRC/ERC, and that the implementation they had in mind for them would solve it much better. Currently, I’m not attracted to their database solution at all (as a KiCad user I’m not a DBA), and I think it’s not aimed at the users that would use alternative symbol shapes either.
I guess it’s somewhat similar like with the autorouter; it’s too big for the current team to spend resources on it.
But I’m always trying.
I’ve often been told I’m trying. 
I never said I like the name, but I don’t decide, that’s up to the KiCAD team.
“Alternate symbol” would work just as well and be more inclusive of other uses.
Did he rectify the wrongs of the hysterical historians? What a pain in the anode!
Now now, no need to get heater up about this.
Well I have made an attempt to put an alternate symbol into my own library, and I am stuck. I am using 6.0. I had a look at:
and have a question similar to what a poster asks there. I am at this
and I do not know where to go from here??
The next step is in the editor window. At the top you will find two buttons for the two graphics.
