And.. again.. digital signal doesn't have any noise or subjectivity. Each state is either true or false. Analogue signal has noise. That's exactly my point, so it is entirely related.
I didn't say the digital signal had noise. The digital signal, the end result itself, doesn't have any noise. I said the methods of gauging the smartness are imprecise and introduce random inaccuracies. If you had a better measuring method you wouldn't have any input/processing noise. It is a practical limitation. Mathematically, there are no limitations. That's why the whole "judging how smart a particular idea is is highly subjective" thing is just a side comment and
unrelated to the rest of the post. No need to cling onto it.
That's literally the factor that differentiates it from a digital signal, the only thing that defines it as analogue [...] the only thing that defines something as analogue: its continuous nature
You yourself quoted the definition of analog as "a representation of some other time varying quantity, i.e.,
analogous to another time varying signal." Analog means representing another value with an
analogous value (for example position of a pointer on a scale, level of water in a pool, a stick marked at the analogous length, etc.), whereas digital means representing it with a number.
That is, literally, the factor that differentiates the two. This distinction is especially important when you have a constant value.
I assume your next point will be something like "You're making an ad hominem fallacy by attacking me instead of countering my argument, you've brought nothing new to the table", or failing to justify once again what you've already failed to justify, and sure, it's fallacious to poison the well
And I have a few other logical fallacies to point out, like strawman argument, moving the goalposts, and obfuscating the issue.
I don't have to "justify" claims you made and attributed to me (either because you lack reading comprehension, you're trying to change the subject, or because you have no idea what you're talking about (the three are not mutually exclusive)), it is your job to refute the points
I actually
made. And you haven't. You keep arguing tangents.
"You're saying analog is digital."
I'm not.
"You're saying discrete is continuous."
I'm not.
"You're saying continuous is discrete."
I'm not.
"You're saying there's only a finite number of values of smartness."
I'm not. I never said any of those things.
My claims are:
- Digital does not mean binary.
- Any value from a continuous spectrum can be represented numerically (digitally) with no loss of information.
And you didn't refute either.
Enough. Let's dispense with the irrelevant rubble you introduced into the discussion in a fruitless attempt to hide the actual argument, and get to the point.
Everything isn't digital you know. Things aren't either black or white, or on and off.
You mean "binary."
The point you were trying to make here is that it can have more than two values, and you used "digital" because you thought digital meant "has only two possible values":
a digital signal is one which either has zero or maximum amplitude at every point.
And that's wrong.
And then you spent the rest of the conversation pretending you meant something else. So by all means, keep squirming. Fact is your choice of words was based on a complete misunderstanding of the term (as you demonstrated), and you refuse to admit it. And I don't expect you to admit it, either, just stop accusing others of pride and/or ignorance, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
