If, simply put, digital is defined as anything we can count (with digits, or say, up to ten digits per etymological analysis), I would assume that anything that we can't is analog, but if so, why "analog" and not just "non-digital"?

If, simply put, digital is defined as anything we can count (with digits, or say, up to ten digits per etymological analysis), I would assume that anything that we can't and it's analog, but if so, why "analog" and not just "non-digital"?

If, simply put, digital is defined as anything we can count (with digits, or say, up to ten digits per etymological analysis), I would assume that anything that we can't is analog, but if so, why "analog" and not just "non-digital"?

If, simply put, digital is defined as anything we can count (with digits, or say, up to ten digits per etymological analysis), I would assume that anything that we can't is analog, but if so, why "analog" and not just "non-digital"?

If, simply, digital is defined as anything we can count (with digits, or say, up to ten digits per etymological analysis), I'd assume that anything that we can't --- is analog, but if so, why "analog" and not just "non-digital"?

If, simply put, digital is defined as anything we can count (with digits, or say, up to ten digits per etymological analysis), I would assume that anything that we can't is analog, but if so, why "analog" and not just "non-digital"?