"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
I've never seen that definition, while I have seen the definition
Floyd is proposing, and I think it is a reasonable one.
No, it isn't. It misses the fact that sampled and digital are
different things. Digits are numbers.
It isn't reaonable to you. Don't publish opinion as fact.
OK, it's not reasonable to ME, either, if you're impressed
by taking a vote on this sort of thing.
The problem with the definition that you and Floyd seem to
want to use is that it leads to several problems in both
theory and practice, in addition to the fact that there are
numerous counter-examples one can point to.
It doesn't lead to any such problems.
What you need to get straight is that it is not *my*
definition. It is the *standard* technical definition
recognized by virtually *every* standards organization.
I quoted the NTIA's Federal Standard 1037C.
"Reasonable" would seem (at least to me) to mean that you
It makes no difference what you think is or is not
reasonable, unless we want to discuss *you*. If you
disagree with the standard definition then you don't
understand the term, and we can determine how far off
you are by how much your definition differs from that
one! ;-)
can justify your definition *through reason*, which Don has
done.
Which proves that he doesn't understand it. It says
nothing about whether the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, knows or what the MilStd
specification knows.
Simply pointing to a published work, including a
standard, as a reference to support your definition is what's
called an "argument from authority," and it has exactly zero
That is a logical fallacy on your part. An "argument
from authority" has great weight if it is valid. To
be valid it must pass three tests:
1) The authority cited must actually be an authority.
2) All authorities must agree on the topic.
3) The authority cannot be misquoted, taken out of
context, or be joking.
Clearly citing the NTIA and MilStd definition is indeed
a *very* strong appeal to authority, and no mere opinion
can even come close to invalidating it.
weight in light of an opposing argument based on evidence
and logic.
What evidence? And the logic is clearly invalid and
based on false assumptions.
You know one way to be absolutely positive that your
logic is not good is to do a reality check and find that
the answer you have is wrong. It this case that is very
easy to do, which is why *standard* definitions are
quoted from authoritative sources. If you disagree,
then clearly you *don't* have the logic right!
However, if you like, I can also point to several
references which support the definition that Don and I (and
So cite even one such valid reference! (You *cannot*,
because there are none.)
(And recognize that if you think you have one, then
there is one of two things clearly true: Either 1) you
do not understand that the other definition is not
actually different, or 2) your reference is not a valid
one.)
I believe others) are proposing. You might claim the list to
be invalid, however, since it would contain works that I
myself wrote for publication. Which is, of course, the whole
You are not a valid reference. You don't even come
close to being equal to the NTIA.
And it is *hilarious* that you would (again, because
this isn't the first time) try to convince anyone that
you are.
point - simply having your statements published does NOT
make them any more or less correct; the deciding factor is
whether or not they can be shown to be true through evidence
and logic.
Except technical definitions are sometimes merely
arbitrary agreements on one of many possible logical
ways to define a term. We could have decided that
"digital" means binary, or a decimal system. We didn't,
but both would be logical.
A common misuse or misunderstanding does not become
less so merely because it IS common.
Hmmm...
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)