[sdiy] Is everything digital?

[Scott Gravenhorst]

Glen <mclilith at charter.net> wrote:
>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. 

However, a digital system, to be useful as such, does require a reliable and
predictable recognition of such states.  And if not useful as such, why then
call it digital?

>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. 

I don't see this as true, you are saying that something that is quantized
didn't necessarily start out as such.  "2 : to calculate or express in terms
of quantum mechanics", from Webster (quantize), would say that things can be
in a quantized state without having started out "unquantized".

>(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. 

Not according to Webster.

>Otherwise, who or what quantized it? What form was it in before being quantized?

>From Webster, the definition does not eliminate things which were of quantum
state to start with and cannot be further reduced.  There is no pre-quantized
state recognized as part of the definition. 

---------------------------------------------------------
- Where merit is not rewarded, excellence fades.
- Hydrogen is pointless without solar.
- What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.
- The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
- Governments do nothing well, save collect taxes.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/fatman/
-- NonFatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/electronics/
-- Autodidactic Master of Arcane and Hidden Knowledge.