| ??? 09/12/07 14:48 Read: times |
#144472 - quoting myself Responding to: ???'s previous message |
The '51 was never intended as a 'mathematical machine' but rather a process controller.
I think this phrase, avoiding the computer/controller distinction, covers the issue fairly. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| FP FAQ edits needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Choosing an appropriate order of magnitude | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| excuse me? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thx, I GOOFED | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| next version tannks Jan & Andy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| scaling | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Certainly not! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| some inspiration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| processor <-> controller, where is the difference? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the subtle differences are... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| terminology taken too strictly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| controller/processor removed, FAQ inserted. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, there's the "standard" definition ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Of course, but makes this the one being a ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| let's put it in this way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
quoting myself | 01/01/70 00:00 |