Hans/TT I like the way you think. However to me the beauty of the "Fragment" is it is still a fragment all the way up and all the way down. In the past I have stripped a byte into 8 bits and used each bit as a flag. And whilst I do not know how to fragment bits I can emulate it by having each bit represented by a byte. Or in future we may be using Quantum bits.
And there are quarks as fragments of subatomic particles as well being subatomic particles. When we join two fragments, we end up with one fragment, that is the point. The whole universe may only be a fragment of something else, we may never know. Initially in this thread I suggested a tiddler was a fragment, it could be by convention, though lets call it only a tiddler, but the concept of fragments being a piece of something else is more conceptual and perhaps more useful. I have said before that the beauty of tiddlywiki is the tiddler, a record in database terms, composed of fields, with a unique title is at eye level, and the tools are all focused around tiddlers. Sure you can fragment the fields further, but the unique tiddler is always addressable. *So given quarks as a guide, where sub Atomic is a line above or below an atom, where everything else is, perhaps we have Tiddler fragments, tiddlers, and meta-tiddlers would be the best way to classify fragments.* Regards Tony On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:41:11 AM UTC+10, HansWobbe wrote: > > I think the ultimate answer to *"When does a part stop being a fragment?" > *may be "when the fragment is Indivisible.". > > Of course, that depends on the tools at one's disposal. I recall Physics > teachers explaining that Electrons,Neutrons and Protons were called > "sub-atomic" part-icles because the prior generation though that the Atom > was the smallest, indivisible object. And as an engineer, I was taught > that the difference between analog signals (messy Fourrier wholes) and > digiat signals was that, in the digital realm, there were only 0 and 1. > > Now, with Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computing, I am only *probably *sure > I can say "I think, therefore I am.". > > In the scope and context of TiddlyWiki, I have come to appreciate that *a > Character is the smallest practical Part* (glibly over-looking that there > are 4 bits to a Nibble and 2 Nibbles to a Byte and as many as possible 2^31 > characters in the UniCode character set). > > For me, that makes a unicode character the smallest possible fragment. I > am also relatively certain that, since a Character is Indivisible, it can > only be divided by 1 or itself ... which is really neat since it means > Characters are like Prime numbers! > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/8e494ecd-1e0f-4ae5-96a6-96396cf2d677%40googlegroups.com.
