>>29169267I'm sorry, but I must interject.
What you just used is known as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. In short, it's claiming that something isn't a "real" thing because it doesn't meet your personal criteria. The most common example of this is the following:
>Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.">Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.">Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."As you can see, person A is clearly incorrect, because a) person B's uncle is a Scotsman, but also puts sugar on his porridge, therefore disproving the generalisation and b) not putting sugar on your porridge is not a criteria of being a Scotsman, in fact, the only criteria is being of Scottish descent.
In this case, you have implied that "phones" are not "real" computers. If you look up the definition of "computer", you'll see that this is completely and utterly incorrect, and a perfect example of this fallacy.
>an electronic device which is capable of receiving information (data) in a particular form and of performing a sequence of operations in accordance with a predetermined but variable set of procedural instructions (program) to produce a result in the form of information or signals.Being a computer has 4 main criteria:
a) being an electronic device
b) being capable of receiving data
c) performing a sequence of operation in accordance with predetermined but variable instructions
and
d) produce a result in the form of information
Both smartphones and even regular phones are capable of all 4 of those things, meaning that they are, in fact, computers.
Don't worry, this is a common mistake that everyone makes sometimes, and I forgive you, but try not to do it again.
