Return-Path: <John.Harrison-request@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Mon, 10 May 1993 09:00:03 +0100
Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA04815;
          Mon, 10 May 93 00:49:07 -0700
Sender: info-hol-request@ted.cs.uidaho.edu
Errors-To: info-hol-request@ted.cs.uidaho.edu
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iraun1.ira.uka.de by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA04810;
          Mon, 10 May 93 00:48:52 -0700
Message-Id: <9305100748.AA04810@ted.cs.uidaho.edu>
Received: from ira.uka.de by iraun1.ira.uka.de with SMTP (PP) 
          id <25335-0@iraun1.ira.uka.de>; Mon, 10 May 1993 09:42:35 +0200
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 9:43:42 MET DST
From: schneide <schneide@ira.uka.de>
To: info-hol@ted.cs.uidaho.edu
Subject: Parity example

> Their is an example of a parity circuit I have seen in several papers
> (bibtex entries below).  Can someone tell me what the source of this
> circuit is?

We have taken the example of the following paper:
    M. J. C. Gordon,
    `HOL: A Proof Generating System for Higher-Order Logic',
    in VLSI Specification, Verification and Synthesis,
    edited by G. Birtwistle and P. A. Subrahmanyam,
    Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science
    (Kluwer, 1988), pp. 73--128.
as Tom Melham already pointed out. 

Klaus