In some ways, it is the way that you pick on tiny facets, and labour
them to the point of being excruciating, to defend a position that is
often contentious, or even potentially untenable, that gives me the
most problem with trying to have a discussion with you. You berate
people for not being able to take on an alternative view of something
that you consider them to be wrong on, but then flatly refuse to even
consider modifying your own position.

Why should I, when I'm right? We don't take a vote on whether the Earth is
flat, or similar issues. Some things are objectively true, others are a
matter of opinion, and not debatable. This is one of the latter.

I don't care much for RegeR's music (which might be poor music in some
"objective" fashion), but I listen to it occasionally to see if my taste has
changed. But if some tells me that he has proof Special Relativity is wrong,
I'm not like to consider modifying my opinion that it's right.

(Amost) whenever someone tells me I'm wrong about something, I give it
careful consideration. And you know what? I'm often wrong.


Just as a matter of interest, do you consider a circuit constructed
simple logic gates, to be 'digital', even though no numeric values
are being handled by it ?

That's not an unreasonable question.

The answer is "yes", because the output of the circuit is presumably one of
two logic states -- 0 or 1, true or false. Digital is about quantization --
not numbers, per se.

This is what gets so many people torqued up. When I point out that
quantizing a signal level converts it to digital, they start yelling "Where
are the numbers!". You don't need numbers. All you need is to reduce the
data to a finite number of states or values. And then the data are digital.