plate@dicome.UUCP (Douglas B. Plate) (10/31/86)
****8") Let's write line eater jokes here. {:-)**************
The complete workings of the universe are analog in nature,
the growth of a leaf, decay of atomic structures, passing of
electrons between atoms, etc. Analog is natural reality,
even though facts about it's properties may remain unknown,
the truth of ANALOG exists in an objective form.
DIGITAL is an invention, like mathematics. It is a representation,
and I will not make any asumptions about what it would represent
except that whatever it represents, being a part of this Universe,
would have the same properties and nature that all other things
in the Universe share. The goal of DIGITAL then would be to
represent things 100% accurately. I will not say that ANALOG is
an infinitely continuous process, because I cannot prove that
there is not a smallest possible element involved in an ANALOG
process, however taking observed phenomena into account, I would
risk to say that the smallest element of ANALOG have not been
measured yet if they do ideed exist.
Digital is finite only in the number of elements it uses to represent
and the practical problem is that "bits" would have to extend
into infinity or to a magnitude equalling the smallest element
of what ANALOG is made of, for digital to reach it's full potential.
The thing is, Analog has the "natural" advantage. The universe is
made of it and what is only theory to DIGITAL is reality to
ANALOG. The intrinsic goal of DIGITAL is to become like
ANALOG. Why? Because DIGITAL "represents" and until it
becomes like ANALOG in it's finity/infinity, all of it's
representions can only be approximation.
DIGITAL will forever be striving to attain what ANALOG
was "born with". In theory, DIGITAL is just as continuously
inifinite as ANALOG, because an infinite number of bits could
be used to represent an infinite number of things with 100%
accurancy. In practice, ANALOG already has this "infinity"
factor built into it and DIGITAL, like a dog chasing it's own
tail, will be trying to catch up on into infinity.
Doug Platemwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) (11/03/86)
* sacrifice to the Great Line Eater God * In article <1111@dicome.UUCP> plate@dicome.UUCP (Douglas B. Plate) writes: ... >The goal of DIGITAL then would be to >represent things 100% accurately. ... >I would >risk to say that the smallest element of ANALOG have not been >measured yet if they do ideed exist. >The thing is, Analog has the "natural" advantage. The universe is >made of it and what is only theory to DIGITAL is reality to >ANALOG. The intrinsic goal of DIGITAL is to become like >ANALOG. Why? Because DIGITAL "represents" and until it >becomes like ANALOG in it's finity/infinity, all of it's >representions can only be approximation. >DIGITAL will forever be striving to attain what ANALOG >was "born with". In theory, DIGITAL is just as continuously >inifinite as ANALOG, because an infinite number of bits could >be used to represent an infinite number of things with 100% >accurancy. In practice, ANALOG already has this "infinity" >factor built into it and DIGITAL, like a dog chasing it's own >tail, will be trying to catch up on into infinity. Anything measurable can only so be by a process known as "measurement". Measurements have a given (that is, finite) precision. => Any measured quanity has a finite precision. Digital systems can represent exactly, and compute exactly, to a given, finite, precision. Analog computations cannot be more accurate than the measurements used to generate the values used for computation, and therefore cannont be any more precise than a digitally computed result carrying the precision of the original measurements. So, in practice, both analog and digital are limited by the precision of the measurements used to get the quantities with which computation is being performed. For example, I can write a program that will spew out (correct) values for pi as arbitrarily precise as I want on a digital computer, yet an analog system such as a compass and ruler is only as precise as my ruler. I can theoretically build an arbitrarily precise ruler, but in practice this is not true. (Not to mention the fact that I cannot build a perfect compass, if it's radius varies at all during the inscription of the circle, I lose accuracy as well). Analog's true advantage is that for special purpose applications, such as simple device control, an analog circuit to perform a job is often much simpler than a corresponding digital device. A classic example is the volume knob, which can be built with a simple potentiometer, or with an analog/digital converter, a numeric volume input of some sort, a division circuit, and a digital/analog converter... A potentiometer is considerably simpler than a division circuit. -- Marc Mengel "All that is gold does not glitter ...!ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm Not all who wander are lost The old that is strong does not whither Deep roots are not touched by the frost" -- J.R.R Tolkein
plate@dicome.UUCP (Douglas B. Plate) (11/06/86)
>From: mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) References: <1111@dicome.UUCP> Reply-To: mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) Summary: Yes, but what about precision? Posted: Sun Nov 2 19:24:17 1986 In article<894@cuuxb.UUCP> mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) writes: ...(quoting my article here) >>The goal of DIGITAL then would be to >>represent things 100% accurately. ... (he replies) >Anything measurable can only so be by a process known as "measurement". >Measurements have a given (that is, finite) precision. >=> Any measured quanity has a finite precision. >Digital systems can represent exactly, and compute exactly, to a >given, finite, precision. >Analog computations cannot be more accurate than the measurements >used to generate the values used for computation, and therefore >cannont be any more precise than a digitally computed result carrying >the precision of the original measurements. >So, in practice, both analog and digital are limited by the precision >of the measurements used to get the quantities with which computation >is being performed. So true Mark, but measurement is not the same as the actual "thing" the measurement represents. I am viewing ANALOG as a process, something really happening, like an element decaying or a leaf growing, or even as current flowing through a conductor not as the measurement of these real events. In fact that was the point of my entire long winded and utterly mute article; Analog (as I see it) can be a real thing or process, but digital is not a real thing, it is in itself a measurement. Now I am trying not to limit my analogies to electrical circuits, but by what I see other people posting, I have totally missed the point of this discussion by trying to look at anything other than analog/digital DEVICES. Thanks for following up. -- Thu Nov 6 10:58:40 CST 1986 % Douglas B. Plate P.O. Box 246 % DICOMED Corp. Minneapolis, MN 55440-0246 % 12000 Portland Av. So U.S.A. (612) 885-3000