On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Jim Piccarello
jp...@blackbird-studio.org wrote:
AND the operations defined in each system mirror each other.
Isn't this redundant? Unless of course, the system is defined in
such a way that it places limits on what operations are definable,
which isn't the
On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Evan Buswell wrote:
AND the operations defined in each system mirror each other.
Isn't this redundant? Unless of course, the system is defined in
such a way that it places limits on what operations are definable,
which isn't the case with mathematical numbers,
The isomorphism discussion is interesting: it seems to be more about
homology than isomorphism properly speaking. But if it is about homology,
anmd perhaps about the kind of structural homology intimated by Lucien
Goldman way back in Le Dieu Cach?, and very important to the first
generation of
AND the operations defined in each system mirror each other.
Isn't this redundant? Unless of course, the system is defined in
such a way that it places limits on what operations are definable,
which isn't the case with mathematical numbers, nor (theoretically)
digitality. I'm pretty sure that's
Jim wrote:
What exactly do we mean by isomorphism?
For me, the interesting thing about the digital world, as opposed to
the analogue one, is that digital objects are all amenable to easy
manipulation transmission with the same bag of tools.
The point is not that they are isomorphic to
What exactly do we mean by isomorphism? There is the mathematical
definition of isomorphism where two systems are isomorphic if and only
if there is one-to-one correspondence between the objects in each
system AND the operations defined in each system mirror each other.
The natural numbers are
jeremy hunsinger wrote:
There is no positive difference between discrete values or objects
and some subset (possibly the entire set) of any countable infinite
set, including the set of natural numbers.
really? so there is no difference between an orange. and an orange
section, each
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Of course there is still the question of semantics, as Evan pointed
out; or to put it another way, of the use-value of numbers under
various regimes of interpretation.
To expand on this a bit: a digital work has no intrinsic meaning; it's
only an index into the spaces
Oh, good god. There's no positive difference between discrete values
and numbers, and in the context of the actual discussion I was
responding to (digital things are ... discrete values or objects),
there's no positive difference between discrete objects and numbers.
there are other kinds of
On Friday, February 20 2009, 15:55 (-0500), Michael Wojcik wrote:
Flick Harrison wrote:
I can understand the temptation to reduce digital to numbers.
There may be such a temptation, but at the end of the day, digital
and certain fields of numbers (namely discrete ones), as technical
Flick Harrison wrote:
I can understand the temptation to reduce digital to numbers.
There may be such a temptation, but at the end of the day, digital
and certain fields of numbers (namely discrete ones), as technical
terms, are isomorphic. There's no reduction going on.
But I think it
Flick Harrison wrote:
I can understand the temptation to reduce digital to numbers.
But I think it borders on tautology to define digital as computable
numbers... computable only by a computer. Defining a computer as a
hardware machine running software by which these numbers can be
Howdy everyone, I'm enjoying this list! I just joined it a few weeks
ago, and lurk-time is over. I've been reading my Emily Postnews and I
think I'm ready to contribute.
I can understand the temptation to reduce digital to numbers.
But I think it borders on tautology to define digital as
In definitions, we always must ask: why? We use the words usefully
already, why (politically) make the definition include or exclude
something? I certainly don't have a clear answer to this question,
which makes me hesitant to contribute; nevertheless, I feel I have a
few things that might build
For me, digital is a woody kind of word.
Similar to shruberries.
# distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
# nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info:
I must correct a technical error that has crept into these discussions
at least twice.
Analog film frames are not digital. The case in point is simply this:
you can take the letters of the Bible and re-arrange them to produce,
for example, War and Peace.
But you _cannot_ take the frames of, for
On Thursday, 29. January 2009, Lloyd Dunn wrote:
I must correct a technical error that has crept into these discussions
at least twice.
Analog film frames are not digital. The case in point is simply this:
you can take the letters of the Bible and re-arrange them to produce,
for example,
Thanks Florian, for your precise criticism of this indeed rather sloppy
manifesto.
Regarding your definition of what is 'digital' as opposed to analog, I
have the impression that there are two definitions of 'the digital'
circulating: one equals digital to 'build up by discrete entities' -
The Insatiable Abstraction Engine: A Digital Humanities
Manifesto
http://bbrace.net/R/Rabbit-Raffle.html --
../R/Rusty-Sprockets.html
/:b
# distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
# nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering
KMV wrote:
Michael, I have my own thoughts about it, but could you say more about
what or which you mean by bogus folk histories?
I am working on a history myself and have not been very impressed with
the largely anecdotal and narrow accounts that I see then being
universalized, and the
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Florian Cramer wrote:
[...] technically seen, the movable type printing press is
not an analog, but a digital system in that all writing into discrete,
countable [and thus computable] units.
By the same token, traditional projected film is a digital system,
since
The problem at hand is a basic literacy. 'Digital' is used as a completely
unsuitable substitute for 'discrete'. Film is discrete, even images on the
computer monitor are discrete, but their internal representations can be
digital or not. The two are not related.
By the same token, traditional
On Friday, January 23 2009, 18:57 (-0700), inimino wrote:
The meat of text is in the sequence of letters; the actual analog
details of those letters are irrelevant. To me, the capacity for
lossless copying is the hallmark of digital information.
Can we extend Florian's remark to all
First, really enjoying the discussion, so thanks Florian and Michael.
Michael, I have my own thoughts about it, but could you say more about what
or which you mean by bogus folk histories?
I am working on a history myself and have not been very impressed with the
largely anecdotal and narrow
Thanks, Kim, for informing the list about this. -
It's always difficult when online discussions branch into different
threads on different sites. But it seems as if there are enough
significant differences between the digital humanities discourse on
the UCLA site and the discourse on Nettime to
25 matches
Mail list logo
