[Floyd L. Davidson]

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:46:19 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:57:03 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:
I like your categories. It is possible in concept to
have a signal that is quantized in magnitude and
continuous in time, but (unless we resort to counting
electrons) I don't think it's possible in practice.

If you quantize the magnitude, it is digital. That is
by definition.

No it isn't. It isn't digital until you assign numerical values to
those quantized levels. Until then it is simply a quantized analogue
signal.

If you quantize it, you *have* assigned a value to it,
and that value is not from a continuous set, but from a
discrete finite set, and therefore it is digital.

A "quantized analogue signal" is digital by definition.


No, you haven't. You merely have a signal at a set of discrete levels.

Sheesh! That *is*, by definition a digital signal.

You need an analogue to digital converter to take each of those
quantized levels and convert it into a digital word (of 1s and 0s).

Digital means "represented by digits", not "in discrete voltage
steps".

Bull**** son. Look it up. I've provided you with
quotes from an authoritative reference, twice now. You
don't have to take my word for it, that *is* the agreed
technical definition of the term.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)