LOL Same point as I just explained to QuarkHead. The claim was made that all real-valued frequencies in an interval of real numbers can physically exist. The fact that some real numbers happen to be integers is irrelevant. No, that's not the word. It's disingenuous. Not intellectually serious. Someone says that "all real values may occur," and I point out that's impossible because most real numbers are noncomputable. which would violate many known physical laws; and two people yammer that, "Oh yeah well 3 is a real number." Please see my detailed reply to QuarkHead regarding the posts and comments of Q-reeus that I am arguing against. The claim was made -- explicitly, at least three times -- that frequency distributions can be literally (ie physically, in the real world) be continuous. That simply cannot be, on information-theoretic grounds. Certainly. Most arbitrary real numbers are noncomputable. That means that their decimal (or binary if you like) digits can not be cranked out by an algorithm. Natural numbers, integers, rationals, and even many irrationals like sqrt(2) or pi are computable. So even though pi's decimal expression is an infinitely long non-repeating string of digits, pi only encodes a finite amount of information. We could write a program, using only finitely many characters, that would crank out as many digits of pi as you like, subject only to constraints of computational resources. (Physical constraints on computation are not part of this definition. We assume our program has as much energy and storage and time as it needs to crank out the n-th digit for arbitrary n). But most real numbers are noncomputable. "Most" in this context has a technical definition. If you throw all the real numbers into a hat and pick one out at random, you will pick a noncomputable real number with probability 1. A noncomputable number contains a truly infinite amount of information. You can't compress it to a finite-length computer program or algorithm or definition or description or unique characterization. The only way to specify it is it give all its digits, infinitely many of them. This would violate not only every known law of physics, but many laws that are suspected. It would falsify the Computational universe hypothesis. It would show, once and for all, that the universe is not a computer, that we are not computational simulations. That's not to say someone won't discover a physical noncomputable number tomorrow morning. Only that if it happens, it will overthrow everything we know about computation and physics. The discoverer will get an instant Nobel prize and we'll have our next major revolution after Newton and Einstein. Now this is all perfectly obvious, and I think you and I are in perfect agreement that electromagnetic frequencies aren't REALLY continuous in the real world. But Q-reeus claims otherwise. He's confusing the mathematical model with reality. In the phrase I've been using, he's confusing the map with the territory.