[Floyd L. Davidson]

ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:43:46 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Gobbledegook.

That is being as ass.

And you claimed to have worked in transmission engineering?

Whooosh...

Don't be such an ass.

What did you expect.

If you don't understand the technology, cease the
pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
that?

Yes indeed! Agreed, agreed. Kinda reminds me of a quite
pretentious ass in r.p.d. that rather than use the "standard term"
of the industry, chooses to avoid writing "lens" when he can use the
affected term "lense". You wouldn't happen to know who that is now,
would you, Floyd? He's also an individual that makes it exceedingly
difficult to carry on a civil conversation. Sound familiar?

Spelling flames are just exceedingly lame. Especially
when you are wrong. And if you don't see why variations
in spelling are not significant, while variation in the
definition of terms is a fatal flaw in any discussion,
one has no doubt about just how credible *anything* you
say could possibly be. Or ever has been in this newsgroup.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

If you don't understand the technology, cease the
pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be
clueless about standard terms of the industry, how is
anyone supposed to carry on a conversation with
someone like that?

Indeed. It also applies to people who try to impose
telephone system thinking on high fidelity audio.

It isn't "telephone system thinking", it's Information
Theory. That applies to a great deal more than high
fidelity audio.

If you were as well-informed as you seem to think Floyd,
you'd know that information theory crosses a lot of
inter-disciplinary lines, and its application and
terminology changes as well. Yes, it is all the same,
but the words and shadings of meanings change.

People who don't know the background theory aren't going
to do well in explaining it with experience only with
high fidelity audio.

Clearly not my problem. But, what you seem to know about
high fidelity audio, particuarly digital audio as it
applies to high fidelity audio, seems to leave a lot to
be desired.

I guess all the giggling by the regulars is not coming
through with the posts? ;-)

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Straw man argument noted and dismissed.

Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
it, a lack of sufficient background.

Sufficient background for what?

BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were intentially torturing
the standard definitions you cited.

A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
same as the number of people who read this thread and
howl with laughter because they do understand what you
don't.

Please don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back. The sprain will
last longer than any possible other benefit that you might receive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Torturing definitions and standards doesn't win you any
arguments.

Actually, it does.

Thanks for finally admitting that you are guilty of
torturing the definitions.

Thank you for admitting that you've lost every argument
you've entered in this thread.

Thanks for showing that you're both delusional, and also that you consider
winning to be the most important reason to enter into a conversation.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Straw man argument noted and dismissed.

So it is a straw man to ask you to cite some authoritative
reference when you claim the standard definitions are not
valid???

You aren't making rational statements, and that is a
wonderful indication of your credibility as far as the
use of logic goes! You have *no* credibility, yet the
claim has been that logic and reason should be used
to define the terms. The paradox is hilarous.

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

You say they are invalid, bu that is because *you* can't
understand them. And that is the only evidence that has
been brought forth yet.

Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
it, a lack of sufficient background.

Sufficient background for what?

To understand the standard terms involved.

BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were intentially torturing
the standard definitions you cited.

Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of logical
ability.

A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
same as the number of people who read this thread and
howl with laughter because they do understand what you
don't.

Please don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back. The sprain will
last longer than any possible other benefit that you might receive.

Yeah, guys who have experience in "high fidelity audio"
couldn't be wrong, right? What a hoot. Can you explain
one characteristic of that particular field that makes
it unique or that provides some experience or exposure
that isn't commonly available elsewhere? High
bandwidth? Low noise? High resolution? Low
distortion? High bitrates? Low errors?

You do understand that it is a vary narrow field with
very narrow exposure to the topic of digital/analog
signaling. Experts (even if they actually were experts)
in that field just don't get much to deal with.

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Torturing definitions and standards doesn't win you any
arguments.

Actually, it does.

Thanks for finally admitting that you are guilty of
torturing the definitions.

Thank you for admitting that you've lost every argument
you've entered in this thread.

Thanks for showing that you're both delusional, and also that you consider
winning to be the most important reason to enter into a conversation.

You are the one who injected all of that into the
discussion. I said no such thing.

It is illogical to label anyone except *you* as
delusional based on *your* delusions.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Straw man argument noted and dismissed.

So it is a straw man to ask you to cite some authoritative
reference when you claim the standard definitions are not
valid???

I never claimed that the standard definitions were invalid. I did say that
some of your uses of them was tortured, and you agreed. So, since we are in
agreement that your use of some of these definitions was tortured, where's
the beef?

You aren't making rational statements, and that is a
wonderful indication of your credibility as far as the
use of logic goes!

Just another one of your straw man arguments.

You have *no* credibility,

Actually, I have quite a bit of crediblity. Just not with you!

yet the
claim has been that logic and reason should be used
to define the terms. The paradox is hilarous.

The paradox is a creation of your own mind, Floyd.

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And I never objected to the definitions, no matter how many times you claim
otherwise, Floyd. Talk about declining crediblity!

You say they are invalid,

Never happened.

bu that is because *you* can't
understand them.

In fact they seem clear enough to me.

And that is the only evidence that has
been brought forth yet.

I don't need any supporting evidence to agree with your reference, do I?

Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
it, a lack of sufficient background.

Sufficient background for what?

To understand the standard terms involved.

Say what?

BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were
intentially torturing the standard definitions you cited.

Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of logical
ability.

OK I get it. I *wasn't* supposed to agree with the evidence you presented,
is that it Floyd?

A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
same as the number of people who read this thread and
howl with laughter because they do understand what you
don't.

Please don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the
back. The sprain will last longer than any possible
other benefit that you might receive.

Yeah, guys who have experience in "high fidelity audio"
couldn't be wrong, right?

We're wrong all the time. That's one reason why we can talk about so many
things so long.

What a hoot. Can you explain
one characteristic of that particular field that makes
it unique or that provides some experience or exposure
that isn't commonly available elsewhere?

Where did I say that audio is unique?

Audio does provide some fairly unique experiences, like working with say,
high end audiophiles. But I don't know if they are totally unique
experiences.


High bandwidth?

Not audio. Audio is about a relatively narrow bandwidth, but one that is
reproduced rather precisely.

Low noise?

Probably. I don't know of any other analog medium that is as dynamic range
conscious as high fidelity audio. Got any in mind?

High resolution?

The fact that Floyd seems unaware of the relationship between low noise and
high resolution might be suspected, based on the last two comments.

Low distortion?

Make that the last three comments.

High bitrates?

Definately not. High quality video wins over audio, all the time.

Low errors?

No comparison between the error rate tolerance of audio and general computer
data. The latter demands basically total perfection, while a modest BER is
tolerable with audio.

You do understand that it is a vary narrow field with
very narrow exposure to the topic of digital/analog
signaling.

True, but as I explained before, it has its moments, and it has its points
where people with little hands-on experience with it expose themselves.

Experts (even if they actually were experts)
in that field just don't get much to deal with.

Our mills might not grind a lot of grain, but they grind exceedingly fine.

[Bob Myers]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy. They are,
each and every one of them, created by a group of very
wise men who were hand-picked by God to do this work,
are infallible, and who may always be counted on to produce
proclamations which should be treated as Holy Writ,
preferably to be engraved in 10-foot-tall letters of flame and
memorized by all schoolchildren starting from the age of 5.
Any arguments based in reason or evidence which even
APPEAR to contradict the Holy Standards are prima
facie in error, and should be ignored. Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain. Never listen to anyone who
suggests that "standards" are actually things created by
committees of ordinary mortals gathered in very ordinary
conference rooms, and more often than not represent the
lowest-common-demoninator thinking of those who
happened to be in that particular room at that particular
time, because they are clearly wrong and not to be trusted.

In short, if reality says one thing, and the standard says
another, the standard wins, and reality will just have to
change to accomodate it. Thus is it written, thus it must
be.

Bob M.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Straw man argument noted and dismissed.

So it is a straw man to ask you to cite some authoritative
reference when you claim the standard definitions are not
valid???

I never claimed that the standard definitions were invalid.

Yes you did. And everyone who has disagreed with me in
this thread did. That is what this thread has been
about. Why do you deny what you have argued?

I did say that
some of your uses of them was tortured, and you agreed. So, since we are in

You said that, I did not agree. Why do you repeatedly
claim somebody else make *your* statements?

agreement that your use of some of these definitions was tortured, where's
the beef?

The beef is that you are dishonest. I've been using
standard definitions, and I have extensive background in
the application of those definitions over an extremely
wide range of practical applications. (One hell of a
lot more experience that can be obtain in the "high
fidelity audio" field.)

You have claimed that people who do high fidelity audio
are different than the telephone industry and have their
own definitions. In fact PCM, and virtually every other
major technical aspect of high fidelity audio, came from
the telephone industry. Your background is meager if
you are unaware of the origination of the technologies,
and certainly those who've only been exposed to high
fidelity audio do have limited exposure.

You aren't making rational statements, and that is a
wonderful indication of your credibility as far as the
use of logic goes!

Just another one of your straw man arguments.

What kind of credibility are you gaining by making the
irrational statement that you do? You say, boo, and
then two articles later claim I said it.

That isn't logical, and you've peppered all of your
recent responses with that sort of nonsense.

You have *no* credibility,

Actually, I have quite a bit of crediblity. Just not with you!

Not with me and not with anyone who can follow a logical
thread and understand it!

yet the
claim has been that logic and reason should be used
to define the terms. The paradox is hilarous.

The paradox is a creation of your own mind, Floyd.

That was *exactly* what was claimed, and you have said
those people are experts and are correct. Hilarious is
a very good description. (Particularly given the total
lack of logical reasoning demonstrated by you and the
others who don't like standard definitions.)

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And I never objected to the definitions, no matter how many times you claim
otherwise, Floyd. Talk about declining crediblity!

Read what you wrote. You have claimed I tortured the
definitions. You have claimed they don't apply outside
the telephone industry, you have claimed that everyone
who told me they are invalid was correct.

Do you know what you are saying?

You say they are invalid,

Never happened.

Read what you wrote (heh, and look up the definition of
"invalid").

bu that is because *you* can't
understand them.

In fact they seem clear enough to me.

Then you'd know that I've been spot on right from the
start, and that all of this bull**** about there being
other definitions is dead wrong. But you've said
otherwise, so apparently it is not clear to you at all.

And now you refuse to even discuss the terms and want to
post nothing but fabricated personal insults.

And that is the only evidence that has
been brought forth yet.

I don't need any supporting evidence to agree with your reference, do I?

Exactly what I have been arguing from the start. The
references I provided are correct, they are
authoritative, and the definitions are valid.

If you agree to that, then you must agree to virtually
everything I've been saying from the start.

If not, you are confused. Exceedingly confused.

Yeah, guys who have experience in "high fidelity audio"
couldn't be wrong, right?

We're wrong all the time. That's one reason why we can talk about so many
things so long.

Funny how you can't show even one major technical part
of this discussion that I was wrong about. You are now
claiming to agree with me totally, yet you post piles of
personal insults that have nothing to do with the
technical issues, and claim that I am wrong.

Wrong about what? I posted the standard definitions for
digital and analog! They *are* correct. First you
claim they aren't, now you say you don't disagree with
me.

Do you have any idea what you are saying?

What a hoot. Can you explain
one characteristic of that particular field that makes
it unique or that provides some experience or exposure
that isn't commonly available elsewhere?

Where did I say that audio is unique?

Audio does provide some fairly unique experiences, like working with say,
high end audiophiles. But I don't know if they are totally unique
experiences.

High bandwidth?

Not audio. Audio is about a relatively narrow bandwidth, but one that is
reproduced rather precisely.

Low noise?

Probably. I don't know of any other analog medium that is as dynamic range
conscious as high fidelity audio. Got any in mind?

High resolution?

The fact that Floyd seems unaware of the relationship between low noise and
high resolution might be suspected, based on the last two comments.

Low distortion?

Make that the last three comments.

High bitrates?

Definately not. High quality video wins over audio, all the time.

Low errors?

No comparison between the error rate tolerance of audio and general computer
data. The latter demands basically total perfection, while a modest BER is
tolerable with audio.

You do understand that it is a vary narrow field with
very narrow exposure to the topic of digital/analog
signaling.

True, but as I explained before, it has its moments, and it has its points
where people with little hands-on experience with it expose themselves.

So your statements about people who work with high
fidelity audio were crapola. They don't have any
experience that is unique. In fact the requirements for
the telephone industry span virtually every technical
aspect that is used in high fidelity audio, and then
goes farther.

A person with extensive hands on experience in all parts
of the telephone industry has so much more depth that is
is silly for you to make such comparisons, because what
is exposed is *your* lack of technical understanding.

Experts (even if they actually were experts)
in that field just don't get much to deal with.

Our mills might not grind a lot of grain, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Stick with baking bread if you don't have enough
background to discuss the technology that is on topic.

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy. They are,

If you don't use standard term definitions, you simply
cannot make sense in a forum as broad as this one.

And you haven't been making any sense at all.

If you don't like the definitions cited, why is it that
you cannot find *any* credible reference to something
else?

We've heard this nonsense from you multiple times, and
you still cannot provide *anything* to support your personal
opinion. And your opinion, from the perspective of anyone
with even a small level of technical expertize, is obviously
nothing but homespun bull**** spawning in abject igrnorance.

In short, if reality says one thing, and the standard says
another, the standard wins, and reality will just have to
change to accomodate it. Thus is it written, thus it must
be.

The facts are though, that the standard in this case meats
up very precisely with reality, and theory. You don't though,
so what does that tell us?

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

[Randy Yates]

"Bob Myers" writes:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy.

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with Floyd's original point,
but citing a written reference holds more water than a post from an
individual on a usenet newsgroup, in my opinion.
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:01:55 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:

"Bob Myers" writes:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy.

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with Floyd's original point,
but citing a written reference holds more water than a post from an
individual on a usenet newsgroup, in my opinion.

Randy, it wasn't a "reference" it was a glossary - a handy shorthand
guide. A glossary in which I have pointed out at least one other
glaring schoolboy howler.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Floyd L. Davidson]

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:01:55 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:

"Bob Myers" writes:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

Lets be clear... The definitions I cited are standard.
I posted 5 or 6 varied references to the same definitions.

And everyone knows, ""standards" are holy.

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with Floyd's original point,
but citing a written reference holds more water than a post from an
individual on a usenet newsgroup, in my opinion.

Randy, it wasn't a "reference" it was a glossary - a handy shorthand

It gives the *standard* definition of the term as is
found in several places, all essentially the same. You
said it isn't correct, but you cannot find a single
reference to an alternate defintion from a valid source.

Hmmm...

guide. A glossary in which I have pointed out at least one other
glaring schoolboy howler.

I'm still unable to comprehend how you think that was a
"howler". Once again have yet to explicitly state what
you thought was wrong with the definiton provided and
you do not give an alternate.

Don, you just are not credible. Given that and all the
other goof ball arguments you have come up with, the
only thing that comes across for certain is that you
simply don't understand the concepts involved.

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

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:38:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I'm still unable to comprehend how you think that was a
"howler". Once again have yet to explicitly state what
you thought was wrong with the definiton provided and
you do not give an alternate.

Right let me spell it out for you. That glossary explained the Nyquist
frequency. As part of that definition it explicitly gave the
requirement that the Nyquist frequency be EQUAL to twice the highest
frequency being reproduced.

That is 100%, definitively incorrect. It is a howler made by many
people who don't understand sampling. To find it in a list that you
regard as definitive must give you cause to consider the quality of
the rest of the list.

Over to you - your turn to explain to me how that was in fact correct.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Dobson]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
...

It gives the *standard* definition of the term as is
found in several places, all essentially the same. You
said it isn't correct, but you cannot find a single
reference to an alternate defintion from a valid source.


My ISP removes headers quite aggressively after only a short time, so I
can no longer check what exactly this is all referencing (had everyone
not spent quite so much time hurling sarcastic "thanks" to each other,
the messages might still be there). Is this all still about "quantized
= digital", and *standard* definitions of "digital"?

And I guess someone will ask "how does one decide this or that source
is 'valid'? ". Wikipedia? Opportunities for more fruitless bipolar
arguments there, I fancy!


Richard Dobson

[Jim Kelley]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Here are some valid standard defintions:

"quantize - to subdivide into small but measurable increments."
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Note that in the definition, there appears no mention of assigning a
value. Assigning a value would then be considered a part of a
separate and distinct process of converting to digital form, as in

"digital - of, or relating to data in the form of numerical digits",

and as opposed to

"analog - of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is
represented by continuously variable physical quantities."

jk

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:51:57 GMT, Richard Dobson
wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
..

It gives the *standard* definition of the term as is
found in several places, all essentially the same. You
said it isn't correct, but you cannot find a single
reference to an alternate defintion from a valid source.


My ISP removes headers quite aggressively after only a short time, so I
can no longer check what exactly this is all referencing (had everyone
not spent quite so much time hurling sarcastic "thanks" to each other,
the messages might still be there). Is this all still about "quantized
= digital", and *standard* definitions of "digital"?

And I guess someone will ask "how does one decide this or that source
is 'valid'? ". Wikipedia? Opportunities for more fruitless bipolar
arguments there, I fancy!

There is another way. Work it out for yourself, from first principles.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Bowey]

On 8/24/07 1:55 PM, in article , "Jim
Kelley" wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Here are some valid standard defintions:

"quantize - to subdivide into small but measurable increments."
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Note that in the definition, there appears no mention of assigning a
value. Assigning a value would then be considered a part of a
separate and distinct process of converting to digital form, as in

"digital - of, or relating to data in the form of numerical digits",

and as opposed to

"analog - of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is
represented by continuously variable physical quantities."

jk


The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications, used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.

[Arny Krueger]

"Frank" wrote in message

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:47:37 -0400, in
'rec.video.desktop',
in article Questions about equivalents of
audio/video and digital/analog.,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Audio does provide some fairly unique experiences, like
working with say, high end audiophiles. But I don't know
if they are totally unique experiences.

Not totally unique? Who else do you know who would spend
$5000 for a 3-meter cable and then decide two weeks later
that it was the worst piece of rubbish ever created by
humankind, and then go out and replace it with a $7500
cable, only to decide two weeks after _that_ that they
once again needed to "upgrade"? :-)

Yes, it takes some comfort with abnormal psychology to play the audio game.


BTW, are you the Arnold B. Krueger who did those sound
card tests on pcavtech.com so many years ago? If so,
please allow me to thank you for your work. It certainly
opened a lot of eyes (and ears).

Guilty as charged! ;-)

My most recent effort is www.pcabx.com

[Richard Dobson]

Don Pearce wrote:
...

And I guess someone will ask "how does one decide this or that source
is 'valid'? ". Wikipedia? Opportunities for more fruitless bipolar
arguments there, I fancy!


There is another way. Work it out for yourself, from first principles.


Well, I seem to have spent my life doing that, as much as I am able. But
agreeing upon terminology, the core vocabulary of the subject, is by
definition a group exercise. Otherwise, people take a term and
arbitrarily make it mean what they want it to mean, which seems to be
the issue here. Converging to an agreement would be great, but after an
avalanche of posts on this thread, people seem no closer now that at the
start. Calling each other "delusional"! First principles? Which ones?! :-)


Richard Dobson

[Floyd L. Davidson]

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:51:57 GMT, Richard Dobson
wrote:
And I guess someone will ask "how does one decide this or that source
is 'valid'? ". Wikipedia? Opportunities for more fruitless bipolar
arguments there, I fancy!

There is another way. Work it out for yourself, from first principles.

Of course, if you don't get it right, you then cannot
discuss that topic with anyone else in the world,
because you see a green house and call it a red barn.
Nobody can understand you...

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:38:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I'm still unable to comprehend how you think that was a
"howler". Once again have yet to explicitly state what
you thought was wrong with the definiton provided and
you do not give an alternate.

Right let me spell it out for you. That glossary explained the Nyquist
frequency. As part of that definition it explicitly gave the
requirement that the Nyquist frequency be EQUAL to twice the highest
frequency being reproduced.

Here is the definition it has of the *rate* (you incorrectly call it
the Nyquist "frequency"):

Nyquist rate:
The reciprocal of the Nyquist interval, i.e., the
minimum theoretical sampling rate that fully
describes a given signal, i.e., enables its
faithful reconstruction from the samples. Note: The
actual sampling rate required to reconstruct the
original signal will be somewhat higher than the
Nyquist rate, because of quantization errors
introduced by the sampling process.

Here is the theorem:

Nyquist's theorem:
A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states
that an analog signal waveform may be uniquely
reconstructed, without error, from samples taken at
equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
frequency component in the analog signal. Synonym
sampling theorem.

It appears that you are somewhat confused as to what is
being defined. The definition for the Nyquist rate says
absolutely nothing about being equal to anything.
Instead it says it is the minimum rate that will "fully
describe" the signal.

That is 100%, definitively incorrect.

What is not correct about it. What do you claim is
correct instead?

Explain *your* definition. (Oh, and do so for all values
of sampling rate as the size of the quantum steps approach
zero.)

Whatever, I can't tell what you are disagreeing with. You
read one definition and claim it is something else, you don't
say what you think is wrong with it or what would be right.

Maybe you disagree with the way the words are spelled,
with the use of the term "analog" or you just can't
understand what it says...

It is a howler made by many
people who don't understand sampling. To find it in a list that you
regard as definitive must give you cause to consider the quality of
the rest of the list.

You are the howler.

You probably should look up Shannon's "Communication in
the Presence of Noise" from 1949.

Over to you - your turn to explain to me how that was in fact correct.

It appears to me that the definition they gave is
precisely correct, and again *you* are abjectly
clueless.

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

[Randy Yates]

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
[...]
Nyquist's theorem:
A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states
that an analog signal waveform may be uniquely
reconstructed, without error, from samples taken at
equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
frequency component in the analog signal. Synonym
sampling theorem.
[...]
That is 100%, definitively incorrect.

What is not correct about it. What do you claim is
correct instead?

One thing that's incorrect and has been discussed many times here
before is that the inequality must be strict. That is, the wording
should have omitted "equal to".

Here's a example of a signal that wouldn't work with your definition:
an Fs/2 sine wave. The sampling rate is equal to twice the highest
frequency component, but since the sample points are precisely at the
zeros of the sine() function, you get zero output.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Jim Kelley wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Here are some valid standard defintions:

Actually, they are good definitions, but they are *not*
"valid standard definitions" for this discussion. You
are citing a dictionary of _common_ English, as spoken
by the general population. But we are discussing what
is called a "term of art".

Term of Art:
technical word: a word or phrase with a special
meaning, used in a specific field of knowledge

In other words, it may or may not be the same, when used
in the information or communications industry as it is
used by the general population of English speakers.

It does happen that in this case there is no significant
difference, and your definitions are useful
illustrations, but they are not very precise, while the
term of art definitions are *very* precise.

"quantize - to subdivide into small but measurable increments."
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Note that in the definition, there appears no mention of
assigning a value.

It says "into small but *measurable* increments". That
is assigning a value, no more and no less. (Indeed,
it would be worthless otherwise.)

Whatever, here is what Wordnet says,

quantize
v 1: telecommunications: approximate (a signal varying
continuously in amplitude) by one whose amplitude is
restricted to a prescribed set of discrete values [syn:
quantise]

2: apply quantum theory to; restrict the number of possible
values of (a quantity) or states of (a physical entity or
system) so that certain variables can assume only certain
discrete magnitudes that are integral multiples of a
common factor; "Quantize gravity" [syn: quantise]

They provide both a term of art definition and a common
usage definition. Both make if very clear that the
result is digital. They both use the word "discrete",
and *that* is indeed the key to defining "digital".

Assigning a value would then be
considered a part of a separate and distinct process of
converting to digital form, as in

Well, except that it is clearly an intrinsic part of
quantization you are right. Of course that also clearly
negates your point.

Indeed, if we do look at a "valid standard definition"
for the term of art,

quantization:

A process in which the continuous range of values
of an analog signal is sampled and divided into
nonoverlapping (but not necessarily equal)
subranges, and a discrete, unique value is assigned
to each subrange.

From Federal Standard 1037C.

We can see that it *clearly* does mean to make it digital.
That is the *only* purpose for quantization.

"digital - of, or relating to data in the form of numerical digits",

That is one of the several common English definitions.
It is rather poorly stated if one is thinking of the
term of art used in the communications/information
industries simply because it will confuse people (just as
you were above by the "measurable increment" as opposed
to stating a "value").

Not all things that are in the *form* of numerical
digits are obviously so. For example, it might be a
difference between flags.... round, square and
triangular. That would in fact be a digital signaling
system, and those are in fact "in the form of numerical
digits", but it might not be immediately obvious either.

and as opposed to

"analog - of, relating to, or being a mechanism in
which data is represented by continuously variable
physical quantities."

Again, that is close, but it is an imprecise common
usage definition. It does not make if clear that the
*value* of the data is continuous, and that merely being
represented using some physical characteristic that is
continuously varying is *not* what it means. It could
easily be misconstrued (and commonly is), for example,
to mean that because a binary digital system using
voltage to encode data does not have *instant* rise and
fall times, that it is in fact an analog system, which
it is not.

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:


The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications, used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.

Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?

Why not provide us with those definitions?

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Richard Dobson wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
..
It gives the *standard* definition of the term as is
found in several places, all essentially the same. You
said it isn't correct, but you cannot find a single
reference to an alternate defintion from a valid source.


My ISP removes headers quite aggressively after only a
short time, so I can no longer check what exactly this

Google archives it.

is all referencing (had everyone not spent quite so much
time hurling sarcastic "thanks" to each other, the
messages might still be there). Is this all still about
"quantized = digital", and *standard* definitions of
"digital"?

Yep. We have people who simply refuse to accept
standardized definitions for terms of art. There have
been several personal opinions on definitions, but not
one authoritative reference to anything that is not
precisely the same as the one that I originally cited.

The reason for that is quite clear, though I suppose not
everyone has understood it yet. That "standard"
definition truly is a standard definition. It has been
accepted virtually across the board by every standards
committee. There is no competing definition available,
and that is why nobody has been able to cite one.

And I guess someone will ask "how does one decide this
or that source is 'valid'? ". Wikipedia? Opportunities
for more fruitless bipolar arguments there, I fancy!

ANSI Standards are not a bad place to start. In this
case virtually all of the interested American standards
groups worked together to generate a single
comprehensive glossary of terms. That is of course what
I quoted to start with. Those who initially said it
wasn't valid are being a lot more careful now though,
because they probably add did try to find something
different, and discovered there simply isn't.

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

[Bob Myers]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Here is the theorem:

Nyquist's theorem:
A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states
that an analog signal waveform may be uniquely
reconstructed, without error, from samples taken at
equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
frequency component in the analog signal. Synonym
sampling theorem.

And that "explanation" of the Nyquist theorem itself
contains a glaring error. The Nyquist rate, as shown by
Nyquist himself, is NOT "equal to, or greater than,
twich the highest frequency component in the analog
signal." If you're at all familiar with what Nyquist
actually said, and why, you should easily be able to
see where the error in that lies.

Floyd, you also continue to cite my refusal to post or
point to an "alternate definition" as if it were some huge
victory for you. But as the old saying goes, "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence." I choose not to
simply point to an opposing "definition" - although there
ARE certainl many such - for the reasons I have stated,
and which should again be obvious here. An argument
from authority pales to insignificance when up against
arguments based on evidence and reason - and when two
people attempt to argue with nothing but "authorities" to
cite, this becomes even more obvious. What would you
have us do, stack the "authoritative references" on either
side up and weigh them to determine the "truth"? That's
a very, very foolish position to take.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
One thing that's incorrect and has been discussed many times here
before is that the inequality must be strict. That is, the wording
should have omitted "equal to".

That's one error. It's not the only one.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
.uk...
Well, I seem to have spent my life doing that, as much as I am able. But
agreeing upon terminology, the core vocabulary of the subject, is by
definition a group exercise. Otherwise, people take a term and
arbitrarily make it mean what they want it to mean, which seems to be the
issue here.

Very true, but in agreeing upon terminology there are also some
"rules" to be followed. We prefer to agree upon terms which
are distinct and which have their own unique meaning or
flavor; if a word is completely equivalent to another word, then
it is a redundancy and should not be preferred. Further, we wish
the words we use to have some basic reason for being chosen -
i.e., the etymology of these words should give the reader or
listener some clue as to their meaning. For instance, what Hooke,
Leeuwenhoek, and others came up with in the 17th century wasn't
called a "microscope" simply because people liked the sound of
that word; it meant something. Similarly, the terms we are discussing
here ,"analog" and "digital," were specifically chosen for these
applications because of what the words already meant and implied.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Don Bowey wrote:


The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.

Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?

Why not provide us with those definitions?

Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
on them.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

Term of Art:
technical word: a word or phrase with a special
meaning, used in a specific field of knowledge

What, you're not going to cite the source of that
definition? Then how could anyone POSSIBLY
consider it to be correct or "authoritative"?

Bob M.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Randy Yates wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
[...]
Nyquist's theorem:
A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states
that an analog signal waveform may be uniquely
reconstructed, without error, from samples taken at
equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
frequency component in the analog signal. Synonym
sampling theorem.
[...]
That is 100%, definitively incorrect.

Whoa, too much context is being trimmed here. Lets put some
back in to keep this straight about what was claimed:

"Right let me spell it out for you. That glossary
explained the Nyquist frequency. As part of that
definition it explicitly gave the requirement that
the Nyquist frequency be EQUAL to twice the highest
frequency being reproduced.

That is 100%, definitively incorrect."

But the above quote is for the Nyquist Theorem, and that
is not what was claimed to be incorrect. The statement
made was about the "Nyquist frequency", and as I pointed
out (and you snipped), the defintion for Nyquest rate
says *nothing like* what was claimed.

Here it is again:

Nyquist rate:
The reciprocal of the Nyquist interval, i.e., the
minimum theoretical sampling rate that fully
describes a given signal, i.e., enables its
faithful reconstruction from the samples.

It is absolutely correct.

What is not correct about it. What do you claim is
correct instead?

One thing that's incorrect and has been discussed many times here
before is that the inequality must be strict. That is, the wording
should have omitted "equal to".

You are looking at the definition of the Theorem, not
the definition of the rate, and then saying the
definition of "Nyquist Rate" should not have the words
"equal to". It doesn't.

But the above is a statement of the theorem, and it
includes the theoretical case (which is totally
impractical) for the quantum size as it approaches 0
size. It is not wrong. (Granted that it is confusing,
and probably would be less so if it has used something
like channel bandwidth rather than frequency component.)

Here's a example of a signal that wouldn't work with your definition:
an Fs/2 sine wave. The sampling rate is equal to twice the highest

The sampling rate. But you are not arguing the
definition of the Nyquist Rate, which *never* says a
thing about "equal to". So you say one definition is
wrong, but your "proof" discusses an entirely different
definition (which happens not to be wrong at all).

frequency component, but since the sample points are precisely at the
zeros of the sine() function, you get zero output.

So why not apply the specific definition given, i.e.,
for Nyquist Rate rather than what you imagine is implied
from the Nyquist Theorem?

Opps, that turns out to be quite correct after all.

What definitions does the IEEE use?

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Richard Dobson" wrote in message
o.uk...
Well, I seem to have spent my life doing that, as much as I am able. But
agreeing upon terminology, the core vocabulary of the subject, is by
definition a group exercise. Otherwise, people take a term and
arbitrarily make it mean what they want it to mean, which seems to be the
issue here.

Very true, but in agreeing upon terminology there are also some
"rules" to be followed.

The number one rule is that once a term is standardized,
*that* is the way it is used. Homespun definitions
might be fun for parlor games, but not in technical
discussions.

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

[Don Bowey]

On 8/24/07 8:45 PM, in article , "Bob Myers"
wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Don Bowey wrote:


The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.

Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?

Why not provide us with those definitions?

Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
on them.

Bob M.



I see Floyd continues to be an ass, in this and other ways. I don't read
his posts any longer, because, having questionable veracity, he is not
relevant.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Here is the theorem:

Nyquist's theorem:
A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states
that an analog signal waveform may be uniquely
reconstructed, without error, from samples taken at
equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
frequency component in the analog signal. Synonym
sampling theorem.

And that "explanation" of the Nyquist theorem itself
contains a glaring error. The Nyquist rate, as shown by
Nyquist himself, is NOT "equal to, or greater than,
twich the highest frequency component in the analog
signal." If you're at all familiar with what Nyquist
actually said, and why, you should easily be able to
see where the error in that lies.

The standard definition of Nyquist Rate from the
glossary is not incorrect.

I don't believe you understand the theorem.
Incidentally, Nyquist didn't come up with the theorem,
hence you really don't want to look at what Nyquist
wrote much as at Shannon's mathematical proof of what
Nyquist proposed.

Floyd, you also continue to cite my refusal to post or
point to an "alternate definition" as if it were some huge
victory for you.

Every single time you claim the standard definition is
wrong you indict yourself. The only way out of the
corner you paint yourself into, claiming to be an expert
and all, is to cite where other experts agree with you.
But clearly none do.

It isn't just your claim that the standard definitions
are wrong that is bogus...

But as the old saying goes, "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence."

But since we do have a great deal of evidence, all of it
saying only one thing, your claim that it is wrong does
require some form of evidence before it is credible.

I choose not to
simply point to an opposing "definition" - although there
ARE certainl many such - for the reasons I have stated,

Yeah, sure Bob! There are certainly any number of hokum
folks just like you that have their own definitions for
any number of things. Put on a tin foil hat and go for
it!

But you don't cite a credible opposing definition
because there are none.

and which should again be obvious here. An argument
from authority pales to insignificance when up against
arguments based on evidence and reason - and when two

You have provided no evidence at all. Your reasoning is
so flawed as to be a joke. And I hate to tell you, but
a *valid* arugment from authority is very very difficult
to overcome. When virtually every standards
organization in the country has agreed to a standard
definition, and accepted it for years, your homespun
hokum defs are nothing other than evidence that your
ability to reason is indeed questionable.

people attempt to argue with nothing but "authorities" to
cite, this becomes even more obvious. What would you

When people argue with no evidence, yes something is
obvious.

have us do, stack the "authoritative references" on either
side up and weigh them to determine the "truth"? That's
a very, very foolish position to take.

There is nothing in the stack on your side of the
question Bob. You have already taken a very very
foolish position.

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
One thing that's incorrect and has been discussed many times here
before is that the inequality must be strict. That is, the wording
should have omitted "equal to".

That's one error. It's not the only one.

So demonstrate where there is another!

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Don Bowey wrote:


The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.

Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?

Why not provide us with those definitions?

Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
on them.

That is correct. If you don't cite the source, it has very
little meaning.

Incidentally, the ANSI T1 committee was involved in the
process of developing the glossary that I've cited.

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Term of Art:
technical word: a word or phrase with a special
meaning, used in a specific field of knowledge

What, you're not going to cite the source of that
definition? Then how could anyone POSSIBLY
consider it to be correct or "authoritative"?

I didn't assume you were quite that trite, but I guess I
should have expected it from you.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/t...f%2520art.html

Other definitions exist:

term of art
: a term that has a specialized meaning in a
particular field or profession

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...erm%20of%20art

What sort of hokum definition do you use?

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

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey wrote:
On 8/24/07 8:45 PM, in article , "Bob Myers"
wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Don Bowey wrote:


The Working Groups of ANSI accredited Committee T1. Telecommunications,
used
the IEEE definitions. Occasionally there were questions, which were
amicably resolved.

Is there some reason you can never be specific about anything?

Why not provide us with those definitions?

Ummm...Floyd, I hate to point this out, but I believe they've
already been provided. You simply didn't recognize them without
someone hanging a big "these are the IEEE definitions" sign
on them.

Bob M.



I see Floyd continues to be an ass, in this and other ways. I don't read
his posts any longer, because, having questionable veracity, he is not
relevant.

It's just exceedingly difficult argue someone who has
facts and understands to topic, isn't it.

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

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:15:40 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:38:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I'm still unable to comprehend how you think that was a
"howler". Once again have yet to explicitly state what
you thought was wrong with the definiton provided and
you do not give an alternate.

Right let me spell it out for you. That glossary explained the Nyquist
frequency. As part of that definition it explicitly gave the
requirement that the Nyquist frequency be EQUAL to twice the highest
frequency being reproduced.

Here is the definition it has of the *rate* (you incorrectly call it
the Nyquist "frequency"):

Nyquist rate:
The reciprocal of the Nyquist interval, i.e., the
minimum theoretical sampling rate that fully
describes a given signal, i.e., enables its
faithful reconstruction from the samples. Note: The
actual sampling rate required to reconstruct the
original signal will be somewhat higher than the
Nyquist rate, because of quantization errors
introduced by the sampling process.

Here is the theorem:

Nyquist's theorem:
A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states
that an analog signal waveform may be uniquely
reconstructed, without error, from samples taken at
equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
frequency component in the analog signal. Synonym
sampling theorem.

It appears that you are somewhat confused as to what is
being defined. The definition for the Nyquist rate says
absolutely nothing about being equal to anything.
Instead it says it is the minimum rate that will "fully
describe" the signal.

That is 100%, definitively incorrect.

What is not correct about it. What do you claim is
correct instead?

Explain *your* definition. (Oh, and do so for all values
of sampling rate as the size of the quantum steps approach
zero.)

Whatever, I can't tell what you are disagreeing with. You
read one definition and claim it is something else, you don't
say what you think is wrong with it or what would be right.

Maybe you disagree with the way the words are spelled,
with the use of the term "analog" or you just can't
understand what it says...

It is a howler made by many
people who don't understand sampling. To find it in a list that you
regard as definitive must give you cause to consider the quality of
the rest of the list.

You are the howler.

You probably should look up Shannon's "Communication in
the Presence of Noise" from 1949.

Over to you - your turn to explain to me how that was in fact correct.

It appears to me that the definition they gave is
precisely correct, and again *you* are abjectly
clueless.

I guessed you would think it was correct. You can't sample at a rate
equal to twice the frequency you are sampling. The wanted signal has
collided with its image and you can't disambiguate them. Thank you for
showing us that you are clueless.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:54:55 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"Bob Myers" wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
One thing that's incorrect and has been discussed many times here
before is that the inequality must be strict. That is, the wording
should have omitted "equal to".

That's one error. It's not the only one.

So demonstrate where there is another!

No need. You claim your definitions to be correct because they appear
to be borne out by a list you claim to be definitive. The list has
been shown to be errored, so your authority has vanished. Deal with
it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com