Maker Pro
Maker Pro

What exactly is digital anyway?

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Wayne"
Ok, let me give you an example where I think you are going with this.
Me, stick, hollow log, jungle. I beat on the hollow log with a stick
to warn my fellow survivors on Lost Island that a man eating cat is on
its way to the shelter.


** Me Tarzan - you Wayne

ROTFL .....

Hey, Wayne - you're an idiot.





........ Phil
 
C

Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael said:
By your definition digital ICs aren't digital.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Hi, Mr. Terrell. I was trying *not* to define anything.

Digital ICs *are* digital, except when they're not. ;-)

Cheers
Chris
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Terrell said:
By your definition digital ICs aren't digital.

They're not. They're electrical circuits fabricated in
monolithic chunks of silicon, which are designed for
the purpose of manipulating information encoded in
digital form as an electrical signal. But it's a whole
lot simpler just to use the shorter, if somewhat
inaccurate, label of "digital IC."

Bob M.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
They're not. They're electrical circuits fabricated in
monolithic chunks of silicon, which are designed for
the purpose of manipulating information encoded in
digital form as an electrical signal. But it's a whole
lot simpler just to use the shorter, if somewhat
inaccurate, label of "digital IC."

No, I pray to differ. There are definitely digital ICs - there are ICs
that are so digital, that they could be damaged by being driven with an
analog signal. And the output is snap-action, which practically defines
digital.

I think that would be the operative word - snap-action. (cf. light switch ;-) )

Cheers!
Rich
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob said:
They're not. They're electrical circuits fabricated in
monolithic chunks of silicon, which are designed for
the purpose of manipulating information encoded in
digital form as an electrical signal. But it's a whole
lot simpler just to use the shorter, if somewhat
inaccurate, label of "digital IC."

Bob M.


I realize that, but I'd like to see you implement a modern computer
operating in a linear, analog mode.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Terrell said:
I realize that, but I'd like to see you implement a modern computer
operating in a linear, analog mode.

As I said earlier, using the analog representation of information
is better for some things; the digital representation is better
for others. And you can certainly design circuits that are
optimized (sometimes very strongly) for one vs. the other.
But it's still all just electricity.

Bob M.
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich Grise said:
No, I pray to differ. There are definitely digital ICs - there are ICs
that are so digital, that they could be damaged by being driven with an
analog signal. And the output is snap-action, which practically defines
digital.

I think that would be the operative word - snap-action. (cf. light switch
;-) )

OK, so what exactly is it, then, that makes a particular IC
(or circuit in general) "digital"? And apparently, there's also
some way to measure "degree of digitalness," else we couldn't
speak in any sensible way of "ICs that are SO digital..." - what
is that measure?

You've suggested that "snap-action" is the operative or
defining word here, in terms of what "digital" means - to
me, what that seems to be saying is that you feel that
"digital" is characterized by rapid changes between discrete
states. But is such behavior really exclusive to "digital"
systems? MUST it be? If it is, and I were to show you a
scope trace of, say, a video signal representing a gray-scale
bar pattern, and didn't identify it or give you any other
context - would you as the result of this definition assume
that you were looking at a "digital" signal?

Please keep in mind that I'm not out to change anyone's
usage of terms like "digital ICs" or such - that's way too
big a windmill to tilt at. But I think it IS interesting to
think about our assumptions in these sorts of things, every
so often.

Bob M.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob said:
As I said earlier, using the analog representation of information
is better for some things; the digital representation is better
for others. And you can certainly design circuits that are
optimized (sometimes very strongly) for one vs. the other.
But it's still all just electricity.

Bob M.


I'm not arguing with you, Bob, merely pointing out that most people
would freak if you tried to explain to them that their new digital toy
is really plain old analog, operating in the digital domain.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Terrell said:
I'm not arguing with you, Bob, merely pointing out that most people
would freak if you tried to explain to them that their new digital toy
is really plain old analog, operating in the digital domain.

OK - although I'd say it even a bit differently. Their
new toy isn't "plain old analog, operating in the digital
domain." These two are not opposites of one another,
nor is it true that "all that is not digital is analog," or
vice-versa. (Power engineering, for example, deals
with electrical circuits which are neither - there is no
information being conveyed, and so nothing is represented
either in analog or digital form. It may be "continuous," and
it might in some cases involve things which are "linear" -
but neither of these is really the same as "analog." At
least not from the perspective I'm trying to argue for
here.

Bob M.
 
R

Rikard Bosnjakovic

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phil said:
Pulling a word OUT OF CONTEXT and then trying to define it is fool's errand.

If you still would have any brain cells left you would take a peek at this
group's name and (probably not) realize the context.
 
Top