[sdiy] Is everything digital?

[Glen]

At 12:12 PM 5/14/2005 , Scott Gravenhorst wrote:

>I partially agree, that is, binary is not the only digital system.  With
>respect to discrete states, a digital system, to be useful as such, depends
>upon them and reacts distinctly to them.  I don't see any dependance in
>analog electronics upon the discrete states that may be present.  I don't
>believe that it is correct to call analog "digital" simply because there are
>steps.  I agree with Paul S., that this is more properly called "quantized"
>and not "digital".  I also see no support for this in the dictionary
>definition of "digital".  The definitions I see all depend upon the
>recognizable distinct states.

Okay, I wasn't referring to the analog circuitry being somehow "aware" of
all the individual distinct states. I was primarily referring to the
*signal* having distinct states (and therefore the *signal* being "digital"
in nature.) Perhaps I was being slightly euphemistic in using the word
digital, but I'm not sure of that.

You might think of the *signal* being *digital* and the analog circuitry as
being a "fuzzy logic* processor.  :)

"Quantized" implies that something started out as being "unquantized" and
was subsequently made to be quantized. (The word practically wreaks of the
past tense.) A common example is quantizing a musical performance to the
nearest 32nd note or whatever. We would call such a performance quantized,
because it has been reduced in complexity to a discrete number of
possibilities.

If something never existed in a purely unquantized form, and always existed
in its current form of discrete countable states, then I doubt it is
totally accurate to call it quantized. Otherwise, who or what quantized it?
What form was it in before being quantized?

:)
Glen