Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Analog/Digital Distinction
Message-ID: <680@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 02:36:38 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.680
Posted: Mon Nov 10 02:36:38 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Nov-86 21:27:32 EST
References: <105@mind.UUCP> <6654@think.COM> <22067@rochester.ARPA> <521@ptsfd.UUCP> <277@apple.UUCP>
Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Distribution: net
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 20
Xref: mnetor sci.math:171 sci.physics:143 sci.electronics:61

Oh my, I feel like I just resubscribed to net.philosophy...

Going back to the original hypothesis that something is more ``natural''
about an anolog representation than a digital one: consider that Nature
chose digital code of three-digit base-four numbers to determine how you
and I are put together.  (Don't tell me there is something ``unnatural''
about DNA...)

There is a good engineering reason why this is so.  You can say all you
want about the discontinuous nature of digital representations as opposed
to analog, but the fact remains that digital is exactly reproducible,
while analog is not.  Where reproduction is concerned--biological or
otherwise--digital representation yields practical techniques for
attaining a high degree of accuracy whereas the ability of analog
techniques to attain such accuracy is merely theoretical.

Take a cue from Mother Nature.  Go digital.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall