Ben Pope wrote:
A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions.

A 3.5 digit meter is NOT designed to display fractions.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Ben Pope wrote:
A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions.

A 3.5 digit meter is NOT designed to display fractions.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Ben Pope wrote:
A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions.

A 3.5 digit meter is NOT designed to display fractions.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

A bit is not a measure of precision. It is a state machine with 2
states. The "value" of the bit is completely irrelevant in this
discussion.

I think your range of allowed use is entirely too restrictive.


Not given the context.

That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
so broadened the context. What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity. If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


I use a
bit in my lathe, and after one broke in two, I used half a bit. Howard
Hughes made a fortune selling bits to oil-well drillers, and repairing
them. [retracting tongue from cheek]


Yes, well done.

Thanks.

So anyway, back to the discussion:


Even taking the restricted meaning
of binary digit, digits are parts of numbers.


Thats nice. A bit is still only capable of 2 states. A binary digit is
still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)

Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
states it can have. "Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Orders if magnitude have
their place, but it is sometimes important to use in-between values.
Hence 3.5 digit meters.


A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to display a
"1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must be an integer
since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point (decimal or
otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.

From Radiums calculations, he appears to want to store 88200 samples in
one bit, you can't. That would require splitting the bit into 88200
"chunks", you can't.

Radium is an opinionated ass. That he's cock sure doesn't make hid
drivel worth considering. Don't expect rationality. If he were capable
of hearing other people, this discussion would be long over.


But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a finite
amount of storage, namely two states. You seem to be struggling also,
mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking about.

We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

I agree also that my comment digressed from the attempt to disabuse
Radium. I had given up on that and thought I was having fun in the
spirit of a Fred Allen radio skit long before commercial television. A
party in Egypt was looking for the remains of King Tut. Two people in
different places claimed to have found the sarcophagus almost
simultaneously. Allen objected: "There can't be two Tuts!" "Oh no?" his
foil (Don the Beachcomber) answered. "Haven't you ever heard of
tut-tut?" It seemed funny at the time, but his delivery is better than
mine.

You can't implement a unit of storage with non-integer number of states
in the digital domain. And you simply can't have a unit of storage with
less than 2 states, otherwise it will contain no information (if you
have one level you know what it will be and is therefore completely
deterministic, if you have zero levels you don't have anything) and will
therefore be completely useless to you.

a system capable of distinguishing 16 states is said to be a 4-bit
system. One that can have 32 states is a 5-bit system. How would you
characterize the information capacity in bits of a system that can have
12 states? I get 3.585 bits. That's log2(12).


Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585 bits
can you? You'd need 4. So what you have to say still doesn't demonstrate
the possiblilty of fractional bits. Merely your inability to distinguish
the mathematical domain from real life.

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.


I realise that you can bunch a load of bits together (a byte, two bytes,
a word, whatever), then order them - together the (ordered) set of
states will provide an integer (since you are either in one state or
another, no half-states) index which you could multiply by some
pre-determined fractional value that each bit represents, to give an
overall value that can represent a fraction. That I'm happy with.

A 3½ digit DVM or display is not a good example here.

Why not?


You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

A bit is not a measure of precision. It is a state machine with 2
states. The "value" of the bit is completely irrelevant in this
discussion.

I think your range of allowed use is entirely too restrictive.


Not given the context.

That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
so broadened the context. What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity. If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


I use a
bit in my lathe, and after one broke in two, I used half a bit. Howard
Hughes made a fortune selling bits to oil-well drillers, and repairing
them. [retracting tongue from cheek]


Yes, well done.

Thanks.

So anyway, back to the discussion:


Even taking the restricted meaning
of binary digit, digits are parts of numbers.


Thats nice. A bit is still only capable of 2 states. A binary digit is
still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)

Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
states it can have. "Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Orders if magnitude have
their place, but it is sometimes important to use in-between values.
Hence 3.5 digit meters.


A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to display a
"1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must be an integer
since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point (decimal or
otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.

From Radiums calculations, he appears to want to store 88200 samples in
one bit, you can't. That would require splitting the bit into 88200
"chunks", you can't.

Radium is an opinionated ass. That he's cock sure doesn't make hid
drivel worth considering. Don't expect rationality. If he were capable
of hearing other people, this discussion would be long over.


But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a finite
amount of storage, namely two states. You seem to be struggling also,
mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking about.

We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

I agree also that my comment digressed from the attempt to disabuse
Radium. I had given up on that and thought I was having fun in the
spirit of a Fred Allen radio skit long before commercial television. A
party in Egypt was looking for the remains of King Tut. Two people in
different places claimed to have found the sarcophagus almost
simultaneously. Allen objected: "There can't be two Tuts!" "Oh no?" his
foil (Don the Beachcomber) answered. "Haven't you ever heard of
tut-tut?" It seemed funny at the time, but his delivery is better than
mine.

You can't implement a unit of storage with non-integer number of states
in the digital domain. And you simply can't have a unit of storage with
less than 2 states, otherwise it will contain no information (if you
have one level you know what it will be and is therefore completely
deterministic, if you have zero levels you don't have anything) and will
therefore be completely useless to you.

a system capable of distinguishing 16 states is said to be a 4-bit
system. One that can have 32 states is a 5-bit system. How would you
characterize the information capacity in bits of a system that can have
12 states? I get 3.585 bits. That's log2(12).


Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585 bits
can you? You'd need 4. So what you have to say still doesn't demonstrate
the possiblilty of fractional bits. Merely your inability to distinguish
the mathematical domain from real life.

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.


I realise that you can bunch a load of bits together (a byte, two bytes,
a word, whatever), then order them - together the (ordered) set of
states will provide an integer (since you are either in one state or
another, no half-states) index which you could multiply by some
pre-determined fractional value that each bit represents, to give an
overall value that can represent a fraction. That I'm happy with.

A 3½ digit DVM or display is not a good example here.

Why not?


You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

A bit is not a measure of precision. It is a state machine with 2
states. The "value" of the bit is completely irrelevant in this
discussion.

I think your range of allowed use is entirely too restrictive.


Not given the context.

That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
so broadened the context. What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity. If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


I use a
bit in my lathe, and after one broke in two, I used half a bit. Howard
Hughes made a fortune selling bits to oil-well drillers, and repairing
them. [retracting tongue from cheek]


Yes, well done.

Thanks.

So anyway, back to the discussion:


Even taking the restricted meaning
of binary digit, digits are parts of numbers.


Thats nice. A bit is still only capable of 2 states. A binary digit is
still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)

Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
states it can have. "Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Orders if magnitude have
their place, but it is sometimes important to use in-between values.
Hence 3.5 digit meters.


A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to display a
"1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must be an integer
since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point (decimal or
otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.

From Radiums calculations, he appears to want to store 88200 samples in
one bit, you can't. That would require splitting the bit into 88200
"chunks", you can't.

Radium is an opinionated ass. That he's cock sure doesn't make hid
drivel worth considering. Don't expect rationality. If he were capable
of hearing other people, this discussion would be long over.


But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a finite
amount of storage, namely two states. You seem to be struggling also,
mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking about.

We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

I agree also that my comment digressed from the attempt to disabuse
Radium. I had given up on that and thought I was having fun in the
spirit of a Fred Allen radio skit long before commercial television. A
party in Egypt was looking for the remains of King Tut. Two people in
different places claimed to have found the sarcophagus almost
simultaneously. Allen objected: "There can't be two Tuts!" "Oh no?" his
foil (Don the Beachcomber) answered. "Haven't you ever heard of
tut-tut?" It seemed funny at the time, but his delivery is better than
mine.

You can't implement a unit of storage with non-integer number of states
in the digital domain. And you simply can't have a unit of storage with
less than 2 states, otherwise it will contain no information (if you
have one level you know what it will be and is therefore completely
deterministic, if you have zero levels you don't have anything) and will
therefore be completely useless to you.

a system capable of distinguishing 16 states is said to be a 4-bit
system. One that can have 32 states is a 5-bit system. How would you
characterize the information capacity in bits of a system that can have
12 states? I get 3.585 bits. That's log2(12).


Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585 bits
can you? You'd need 4. So what you have to say still doesn't demonstrate
the possiblilty of fractional bits. Merely your inability to distinguish
the mathematical domain from real life.

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.


I realise that you can bunch a load of bits together (a byte, two bytes,
a word, whatever), then order them - together the (ordered) set of
states will provide an integer (since you are either in one state or
another, no half-states) index which you could multiply by some
pre-determined fractional value that each bit represents, to give an
overall value that can represent a fraction. That I'm happy with.

A 3½ digit DVM or display is not a good example here.

Why not?


You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:
Not given the context.

That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
so broadened the context.

Oh right. Well I hadn't.

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.

Yeah, I'll go with that.

If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)

No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

Thats nice. A bit is still only capable of 2 states. A binary digit is
still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)

Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
states it can have.

No, but it is governed by the number of states it can have, agreed?

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.

If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a
finite amount of storage, namely two states. You seem to be struggling
also, mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking
about.

We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? Whats a fraction of a state?

Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585
bits can you? You'd need 4. So what you have to say still doesn't
demonstrate the possiblilty of fractional bits. Merely your inability
to distinguish the mathematical domain from real life.

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.

As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Jerry Avins wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:
Not given the context.

That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
so broadened the context.

Oh right. Well I hadn't.

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.

Yeah, I'll go with that.

If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)

No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

Thats nice. A bit is still only capable of 2 states. A binary digit is
still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)

Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
states it can have.

No, but it is governed by the number of states it can have, agreed?

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.

If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a
finite amount of storage, namely two states. You seem to be struggling
also, mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking
about.

We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? Whats a fraction of a state?

Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585
bits can you? You'd need 4. So what you have to say still doesn't
demonstrate the possiblilty of fractional bits. Merely your inability
to distinguish the mathematical domain from real life.

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.

As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Jerry Avins wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:
Not given the context.

That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
so broadened the context.

Oh right. Well I hadn't.

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.

Yeah, I'll go with that.

If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)

No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

Thats nice. A bit is still only capable of 2 states. A binary digit is
still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)

Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
states it can have.

No, but it is governed by the number of states it can have, agreed?

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.

If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a
finite amount of storage, namely two states. You seem to be struggling
also, mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking
about.

We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? Whats a fraction of a state?

Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585
bits can you? You'd need 4. So what you have to say still doesn't
demonstrate the possiblilty of fractional bits. Merely your inability
to distinguish the mathematical domain from real life.

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.

As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Jerry Avins wrote in message ...
Radium wrote:

44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1

I assume that you mean 1/88200 to represent "bit resolution".

Correct.

Jerry Avins wrote in message ...
Radium wrote:

44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1

I assume that you mean 1/88200 to represent "bit resolution".

Correct.

Jerry Avins wrote in message ...
Radium wrote:

44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1

I assume that you mean 1/88200 to represent "bit resolution".

Correct.

"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

Radium wrote:

44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1


Why won't you respond to my postings asking you how you intend to
represent and use fractional bits?

What is wrong with fractional bits? A decimal digit is worth 3.3 bits.

Implementation is a fairly large problem. I'm fairly sure a transistor is
either logically "off" or logically "on".

Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be, and neither do tranmission wires carrying
info.

"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

Radium wrote:

44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1


Why won't you respond to my postings asking you how you intend to
represent and use fractional bits?

What is wrong with fractional bits? A decimal digit is worth 3.3 bits.

Implementation is a fairly large problem. I'm fairly sure a transistor is
either logically "off" or logically "on".

Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be, and neither do tranmission wires carrying
info.

"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

Radium wrote:

44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1


Why won't you respond to my postings asking you how you intend to
represent and use fractional bits?

What is wrong with fractional bits? A decimal digit is worth 3.3 bits.

Implementation is a fairly large problem. I'm fairly sure a transistor is
either logically "off" or logically "on".

Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be, and neither do tranmission wires carrying
info.

Radium wrote:
Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be,

So along with your CoDec (which is clearly impossible because compression
has been around for a long time, is well understood and has been proven that
you cannot compress a signal with arbitrary compression ratio without
significant loss of detail - ever heard of entropy?) you're suggesting an
analogue storage medium?

Impement the bloody codec and sell it, you'll be rich. Go and patent it now
before you lose your chance.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Radium wrote:
Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be,

So along with your CoDec (which is clearly impossible because compression
has been around for a long time, is well understood and has been proven that
you cannot compress a signal with arbitrary compression ratio without
significant loss of detail - ever heard of entropy?) you're suggesting an
analogue storage medium?

Impement the bloody codec and sell it, you'll be rich. Go and patent it now
before you lose your chance.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Radium wrote:
Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be,

So along with your CoDec (which is clearly impossible because compression
has been around for a long time, is well understood and has been proven that
you cannot compress a signal with arbitrary compression ratio without
significant loss of detail - ever heard of entropy?) you're suggesting an
analogue storage medium?

Impement the bloody codec and sell it, you'll be rich. Go and patent it now
before you lose your chance.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
Jerry Avins wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

big snip

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben

If Oscar Wilde didn't say,
"Don't argue with a fool, people can't always tell the difference,'
he SHOULD have.

Ken

"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
Jerry Avins wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

big snip

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben

If Oscar Wilde didn't say,
"Don't argue with a fool, people can't always tell the difference,'
he SHOULD have.

Ken

"Ben Pope" wrote in message ...
Jerry Avins wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

big snip

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben

If Oscar Wilde didn't say,
"Don't argue with a fool, people can't always tell the difference,'
he SHOULD have.

Ken

Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

...

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.


Yeah, I'll go with that.


If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

...

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.


If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3½-digit display by convention. (For true
3½ digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

...

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states

Right on!

2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

...

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.


As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

...

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.


Yeah, I'll go with that.


If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

...

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.


If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3½-digit display by convention. (For true
3½ digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

...

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states

Right on!

2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

...

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.


As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

...

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.


Yeah, I'll go with that.


If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

...

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.


If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3½-digit display by convention. (For true
3½ digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

...

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states

Right on!

2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

...

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.


As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.

"Paul Russell" wrote in message
news
Radium wrote:
44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1


a = b + c ... (1)

5a = 5b + 5c ... (2)

4b + 4c = 4a ... (3)

Add (2) and (3):

5a + 4b + 4c = 4a + 5b + 5c ... (4)

Subtract 9a:

-4a + 4b + 4c = -5a + 5b + 5c ... (5)

Simplify:

4(b + c - a) = 5(b + c - a) ... (6)

Divide by (b + c - a):

4 = 5 ... (7)

Paul

When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.

"Paul Russell" wrote in message
news
Radium wrote:
44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1


a = b + c ... (1)

5a = 5b + 5c ... (2)

4b + 4c = 4a ... (3)

Add (2) and (3):

5a + 4b + 4c = 4a + 5b + 5c ... (4)

Subtract 9a:

-4a + 4b + 4c = -5a + 5b + 5c ... (5)

Simplify:

4(b + c - a) = 5(b + c - a) ... (6)

Divide by (b + c - a):

4 = 5 ... (7)

Paul

When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.

"Paul Russell" wrote in message
news
Radium wrote:
44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200

44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1


a = b + c ... (1)

5a = 5b + 5c ... (2)

4b + 4c = 4a ... (3)

Add (2) and (3):

5a + 4b + 4c = 4a + 5b + 5c ... (4)

Subtract 9a:

-4a + 4b + 4c = -5a + 5b + 5c ... (5)

Simplify:

4(b + c - a) = 5(b + c - a) ... (6)

Divide by (b + c - a):

4 = 5 ... (7)

Paul

Jon Harris wrote:
When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.


Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice though.

Paul

Jon Harris wrote:
When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.


Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice though.

Paul

Jon Harris wrote:
When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.


Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice though.

Paul

...snip..
Hence, the apparent paradox.


Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice though.

Paul

I might guess there are novice errors in definition that confound [his]
dimensional
analysis or maybe he's bucking for a job with Bose.

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

...snip..
Hence, the apparent paradox.


Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice though.

Paul

I might guess there are novice errors in definition that confound [his]
dimensional
analysis or maybe he's bucking for a job with Bose.

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

...snip..
Hence, the apparent paradox.


Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice though.

Paul

I might guess there are novice errors in definition that confound [his]
dimensional
analysis or maybe he's bucking for a job with Bose.

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

Jerry Avins wrote in message ...
Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

...

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.


Yeah, I'll go with that.


If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

...

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.


If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3½-digit display by convention. (For true
3½ digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

...

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states

Right on!

2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

...

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.


As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry

Jerry Avins wrote in message ...
Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

...

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.


Yeah, I'll go with that.


If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

...

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.


If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3½-digit display by convention. (For true
3½ digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

...

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states

Right on!

2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

...

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.


As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry

Jerry Avins wrote in message ...
Ben Pope wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

...

What do you make of the statement that every
bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.


Yeah, I'll go with that.


If a five-bit word
holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)


No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

...

"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions. It is used to
display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the ½ digit.

Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
the lowest range.


If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3½-digit display by convention. (For true
3½ digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

...

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^½ = 1.4142 states

Right on!

2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something? What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

...

I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post? We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why. It's an
example of something completely different.

Yes. I'm sorry.

The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
many categorical statements to question.


As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry

Radium wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote in message
...
Ben Pope wrote:
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

Radium, please keep up. And please trim the stuff that is not relevant...
posting 80 lines of stuff, just to reply with a buried one-line answer
demonstrating your complete ignorance is hardly appropriate.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Radium wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote in message
...
Ben Pope wrote:
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

Radium, please keep up. And please trim the stuff that is not relevant...
posting 80 lines of stuff, just to reply with a buried one-line answer
demonstrating your complete ignorance is hardly appropriate.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Radium wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote in message
...
Ben Pope wrote:
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

Radium, please keep up. And please trim the stuff that is not relevant...
posting 80 lines of stuff, just to reply with a buried one-line answer
demonstrating your complete ignorance is hardly appropriate.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Radium wrote:

...

1/88200 = .0000113378684807256235827664399092971

Bully for you! To eight significant figures,
2^.0000113378684807256235827664399092971 rounds to 1.00000786. So?

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯