A fact from Key relevance appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,835 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that key relevance is a locksmithing term that refers to the measurable difference between an original key and a copy made of that key?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
"though truly digital-coded radio signals do not have key relevance ratings because they must have precise unlocking codes, with no degree of difference whatsoever in order to operate."
Wouldn't that be the definition of a bit (binary's smallest data unit) of computer memory since at some level it's an analog device (capacitor in many cases) with a range of allowed charges for each value? This isn't exactly OR as this concept goes back to the vacuum tube days, but I figured I'd ask here to get a consensus from engineering types. From a physics point of view, it's not like digital devices get a free pass to violate the normal laws. They still have a limit of precision (and accuracy to the bit). See the articles on a system's noise floor and SNR for references. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Noise_floorhttp://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio If you wanted to get really technical, each bit is like one of the digits of a car's (mechanical, standard sizes of wafers) key & cylinder. All the digits must match in either case. Of course, the analogy fails when you consider more advanced electronic keys that don't just compare an incoming stream of bits to some pre-stored value. Some use concepts like a shared secret or public-key cryptography that depends on pseudo-random (enough to not be easily guessed) numbers. 2601:1:9280:155:D9EC:4DD0:492E:4951 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
