[pixelbro]

What he's implying, and what you're missing here, is that the discussion is about the FFT and MP3 algorithms, and how that signal processing affects the signal.

The physical substrate which executes the algorithm is irrelevant to the discussion. Indeed, even the fact that the signal represents sound waves is irrelevant. We could build a computer that executes the same instructions on the same inputs mechanically, using gears and valves and whatnot, or perform the instructions manually on paper, and the algorithm would result in exactly the same output.

[achillesheels]

Why don't you believe the principle of electromagnetic action effecting the algorithmic process vis-a-vis the mathematical transformation of the quantities of motion is irrelevant?

[drdeca]

You’ve got the a double negation there. (I.e. you said “don’t” and “irrelevant”, when presumably what you meant to express would either have the “don’t” and “relevant” rather than “irrelevant”, or would lack the “don’t”)

You are wording things very strangely (E.g. “principle of electromagnetic action”, “quantities of motion”). This greatly hinders communication. Are you able to say things in a more normal way?

My guess is you are asking why they believe that the substrate the algorithm is implemented in is irrelevant. This is by nature of what it means to implement an algorithm. The same algorithm implemented faithfully (by which I mean, implemented such that it runs correctly, i.e. as specified) will behave the same regardless of the substrate, because what it means for the algorithm to run correctly is independent of the substrate. If it behaved differently in a different substrate, in that it gave a different output, then it would not be performing/implementing the same algorithm, by virtue of what it means to be implementing an algorithm.

[achillesheels]

Sorry for the double negation, thank you for interpreting it. I am striving to speak in a natural scientific language where the wording is very precise. The concepts you give as examples are commonly found in the minds of great thinkers such as Maxwell and de Broglie. So to speak more commonly is frankly less than ideal.

The algorithm being considered must be considered in an applied scientific paradigm. One is not simply examining a mathematical operation, but one which is being examined to cause natural movement - unless you believe an algorithmic process is occurring with nothing correspondent to nature? To consider it irrelevant to the question of the fidelity differences in a spectrogram analog conversion and an MP3 - which I must remind reader entails the electrical signal output to something humanely resourceful, e.g. listening in headphones - is lacking in critical insight. This is after all the original question, and not an issue of algorithmic differences, correct?

[achillesheels]

Sir, I will assume you downvoted me as opposed to answering my query. Philosophical dialogue may not be intended for you, but for those who aim for eternity, it is important to arrive at necessary truths before we proceed to explain what an algorithm is in practice.