I recently gave a real-world example of this, which anyone whose brain
wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That no
one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again. I refuse to
be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
//might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming majority
of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively untrue,
or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
step-by-step.
I assume most of you are familiar with switching -- so-called class D -- amplifiers. D //does not// refer to digital, though many people incorrectly
refer to them as digital amplifiers, because they believe pulses = digital.
Some //are// digital, but most are analog.
Here's an article that shows their basic operation. (By the way, the
material in the Terminology section is almost completely wrong. It reads as
if it had been written by someone from rec.audio.pro.)
The output transistors are operated as switches -- all-on or all-off. The
amplifier works by varying the duty cycle of the switching. As the signal
becomes more-positive, the output device connected to the positive rail is
turned on for a longer period of time, the device on the negative rail a
shorter period of time. And vice-versa.
The "Signal modulation" section describes the basic method of generating the
pulse-width modulation drive signal. It should be obvious that if the
amplifier's input is analog -- that is, its value varies continuously -- that the information conveyed by the PWM drive signal //must also// be
analog, because the pulse widths necessarily vary continuously.
This is FACT, inherent in the definitions of analog and digital data. It is
not open to discussion or interpretation. As friendly Professor Schickele
says "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth."
There are other ways to generate the PWM drive signal. One way is to the use
the I2S digital output of DSP devices. The I2S data is quantized (right?),
ergo, the pulse widths must be quantized. Therefore, the PWM drive signal is
a //digital// representation of the original signal (just as the I2S data
were).
Now... you tell me... Where in the digital PWM drive signal are the
"numbers" you say are necessary for the digital representation of the
original signal?
<tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
self-deluded responses.
PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as his
e-mail signature:
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land
<grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I recently gave a real-world example of this, which anyone whose brain
>wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That no
>one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again. I refuse to
>be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
>//might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
>There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming majority
>of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively untrue,
>or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
>believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
>evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
>I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
>step-by-step.
>I assume most of you are familiar with switching -- so-called class D -- >amplifiers. D //does not// refer to digital, though many people incorrectly
>refer to them as digital amplifiers, because they believe pulses = digital.
>Some //are// digital, but most are analog.
>Here's an article that shows their basic operation. (By the way, the
>material in the Terminology section is almost completely wrong. It reads as
>if it had been written by someone from rec.audio.pro.)
>The output transistors are operated as switches -- all-on or all-off. The
>amplifier works by varying the duty cycle of the switching. As the signal
>becomes more-positive, the output device connected to the positive rail is
>turned on for a longer period of time, the device on the negative rail a
>shorter period of time. And vice-versa.
>The "Signal modulation" section describes the basic method of generating the
>pulse-width modulation drive signal. It should be obvious that if the
>amplifier's input is analog -- that is, its value varies continuously -- >that the information conveyed by the PWM drive signal //must also// be
>analog, because the pulse widths necessarily vary continuously.
>This is FACT, inherent in the definitions of analog and digital data. It is
>not open to discussion or interpretation. As friendly Professor Schickele
>says "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth."
>There are other ways to generate the PWM drive signal. One way is to the use
>the I2S digital output of DSP devices. The I2S data is quantized (right?),
>ergo, the pulse widths must be quantized. Therefore, the PWM drive signal is
>a //digital// representation of the original signal (just as the I2S data
>were).
>Now... you tell me... Where in the digital PWM drive signal are the
>"numbers" you say are necessary for the digital representation of the
>original signal?
><tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
>I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
>self-deluded responses.
>PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as his
>e-mail signature:
>"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
>questions." -- Edwin Land
William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost patience
with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:00:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
>Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
Your deficiencies weren't apparent at entry. I got my doctorate at
Imperial College if you really feel the need to trade credentials.
> I recently gave a real-world example of this, which anyone whose brain
> wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That > no
> one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again.
The reason you're repeating it is all about your own need
to bluster and pretend your smart and important and superior.
No response has nothing to do with whether anyone understood,
or whether anyone agreed or disagreed, or whether you were
right or wrong. You use pure egocentricism to "reason" to your
defective conclusion.
Maybe nobody responded because you're a consummate asshole,
or because trying to engage in a technical discussion with you
is a waste of their time,
> I refuse to
> be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
> //might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
> There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming > majority
> of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively > untrue,
> or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
> believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
> evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
> I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
> step-by-step.
Condescending and pedantic rambling isn't' writing clearly,
especially when it's interspersed with repeated references
to your own overbloated opinion of yourself, and your imaginary
superiority over everyone else.
> <SNIP condescending and pedantic rambling interspersed
> with repeated references to your own overbloated opinion
> of yourself, and your imaginary superiority over everyone else.
> <tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
<Laughing at the asshole who thinks people give a flying fuck about his foot-tapping?
> I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
> self-deluded responses.
You've provided plenty of asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
self-deluded responses; I don't think anyone's about to surpass it for you.
> PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as > his
> e-mail signature:
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land
PS: You might ask yourself why nobody gives a fuck. If you do
ask, and you accidentally stumble across the right answer like
a blind pig finding an acorn, you're not going to like the answer,
so you'll just reject it.
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:00:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
>>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
>>Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
> Your deficiencies weren't apparent at entry. I got my doctorate at
> Imperial College if you really feel the need to trade credentials.
Note that he was spewing imaginary "credentials" as if acceptance
to a college decades ago somehow indicates that a middle-aged
loser is smart. It's actually pretty pathetic.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:32:59 -0400, "None" <n...@nospam.org> wrote:
>"Don Pearce" <s...@spam.com> wrote in message >news:4fe6ebd5.36586758@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:00:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>> <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
>>>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
>>>Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
>> Your deficiencies weren't apparent at entry. I got my doctorate at
>> Imperial College if you really feel the need to trade credentials.
>Note that he was spewing imaginary "credentials" as if acceptance
>to a college decades ago somehow indicates that a middle-aged
>loser is smart. It's actually pretty pathetic.
First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
in amplitude. I am not sure which process (or maybe neither) you are
discussing.
It is certainly true that you can quantize in time without using
numbers. A simple example is a CCD: the device samples an array of
analog voltages at a specific time. The output is an array of analog
voltages (NOT numbers).
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:00:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>> <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
>>>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
>>>Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
>> Your deficiencies weren't apparent at entry. I got my doctorate at
>> Imperial College if you really feel the need to trade credentials.
>My aunt earned a masters in education and is one of the dumbest people I
>know.
>Not to poo-poo your credentials, Don, but just to say a piece of sheep
>skin doesn't necessarily mean anything...
> --Impressed by your credentials!
I'm the first to second (did I really write that?) what you say. But
my doctorate has resulted in me being chief engineer in a satellite
design facility. Audio, acoustics and recording are a hobby for me.
Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> writes:
> Randy Yates writes:
>> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
>> in amplitude.
> Neither is the same as digital representation of information.
OK, so at the University of Mxsmanic, how is "digital representation"
defined and how is "information" defined?
May I suggest that you consider the definitions put forth by Oppenheim
and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they state:
The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
information.
and also on p.8:
Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
discrete.
So if I may be so bold as to make the jump that "digital representation"
is equivalent to "digital signal," we see that a digital signal is an
information source that is quantized both in time and amplitude, of
which I had stated up front we must be cognizant of.
--Randy
@BOOK{discretetime
title = "{Discrete-Time Signal Processing}",
author = "{Alan~V.~Oppenheim, Ronald~W.~Schafer, with John~R.~Buck}",
publisher = "Prentice Hall",
edition = "second",
year = "1998"}
> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and
> quantization in amplitude. I am not sure which process
> (or maybe neither) you are discussing.
> It is certainly true that you can quantize in time without
> using numbers. A simple example is a CCD: the device
> samples an array of analog voltages at a specific time.
> The output is an array of analog voltages (NOT numbers).
Correct.
> Is that what you're referring to (e.g.)?
No, I'm referring to amplitude quantization -- that is, digitization.
Randy Yates writes:
> OK, so at the University of Mxsmanic, how is "digital representation"
> defined and how is "information" defined?
Digital representation is symbolic. Symbols represent the information based on
a predetermined method of encoding.
Information is generally useful data, as opposed to noise, which is useless
data.
> May I suggest that you consider the definitions put forth by Oppenheim
> and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they state:
> The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
> information.
> and also on p.8:
> Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
> discrete.
They are entitled to their opinions. The difference between analog and digital
can be examined from multiple viewpoints.
> So if I may be so bold as to make the jump that "digital representation"
> is equivalent to "digital signal," we see that a digital signal is an
> information source that is quantized both in time and amplitude, of
> which I had stated up front we must be cognizant of.
Not quantized; discrete. Not the same thing.
Quantization is what transforms a continuous, analog signal into discrete
digital symbols, but it is not the digital representation itself.
>> May I suggest that you consider the definitions put forth by
>> Oppenheim and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they
>> state:
>> The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
>> information.
>> and also on p.8:
>> Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
>> discrete.
> They are entitled to their opinions.
"Unfortunately", their opinions happen to be the truth.
> Quantization is what transforms a continuous, analog signal into
> discrete digital symbols, but it is not the digital representation itself.
It is indeed digital representation. I gave an excellent example you insist
on rejecting.
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<more crap>
> Maybe nobody responded because you're a consummate asshole,
> or because trying to engage in a technical discussion with you
> is a waste of their time,
And they have had enough and done the smart thing by kill filing him. I suggest you do the same and save yourself the grief.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
> Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
Presumably that was before you got older and crankier.
William Sommerwerck writes:
> "Unfortunately", their opinions happen to be the truth.
The truth is that it depends on the viewpoint from which the question is
answered. There are multiple ways to distinguish between digital and analog.
They are concepts, not physical realities.
Jonathan Swift said "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
I'm no genius, "true" or otherwise. I'm hardly at the level of Swift or
Voltaire or Newton or Gauss or Goethe. (Now there was a polymath! I'd settle
for his mind and Manny Puig's body.) But there are plenty of dunces out
there. All you have to do to make them pop out of the woodwork is to say
something that, although true, might not be immediately obvious, or worse,
conflicts with some widely held erroneous belief. We've seen the result of
that. (And no, I'm not bothered that I talk like Frasier Crane.)
I think I know the difference between knowing something, and understanding
it. Most people don't. Most people think if they believe something, it must
be true.
Why do you think (but you don't, of course) the world is so screwed up? A
lot of it is because of "people like you", who lack the ability to think
critically. About anything. Your stupidity is arrayed, not against me -- but
against yourselves, and against humanity.
"As if your ape brains could contain the secrets of the Krell!"
Almost all the world's ills are the result of poor values, and of a failure
to think carefully. People are their own worst enemies. I know that from my
own experience.
I'm owed multiple apologies, but the most-important is for calling me a
liar. I applied to Caltech, Case Western, and MIT in my senior year
(1964-1965), and was accepted by all. You're welcome to check. For what it's
worth (which isn't much), my IQ is at the 99th percentile. And Marilyn vos
Savant makes occasional mistakes that are lulus.
Remain behind the bars of your zoo cages, and keep laughing and gibbering at
those outside.
PS: If you'd like to see some real scientific idiocy/garbage, take a glance
at Terence Witt's "Our Undiscovered Universe". This is one of those books of
pseudoscientific crap that appear every twenty years or so. Instead of just
attempting to describe the way things are, Witt wants to give a "reason".
He's so incompetent, that in at least one of his equations, the units on the
left don't match the units on the right.
