Can I suggest you use the quote button above the top of a post, if you want readers to understand why you are saying something.
The definition of a logic analyser is standard.
I have no idea what "analogue capabilities" might mean. If it means post-processing and combining several digital signals and interpreting them as a number, then that is most definitely not the point I was making.
I am using the quote button, just cutting out the unnecessary clutter and repetition.
You are snipping the
context, and context is important. Exactly what constitutes context is a matter of taste, but there are commonly accepted bounds.
This forum isn't stackexchange, thankfully. Stackexchange actively discourages context, which means the threads are limited to "which button do I press to frobnitze the squirdle", and prevents interesting discussions of subtle points.
The definition of a logic analyser isn't as clear-cut as one would think, hence my example of the Saleae logic analysers. This generation can display analogue signals on all channels and the previous generation could display a few analogue signals along the digital ones, blurring the line between oscilloscopes and logic analysers the same way many other instruments are blurring the lines between their instrument type and adjacent types.
https://www.saleae.com/
If the 555 timer is a direct representation of a digitised analogue voltage, then it is an oscilloscope display.
It is completely irrelevant whether the oscilloscope display is intermingled with a logic analogue display - they are still two completely different instruments.
By your contention, you believe that the screenshot below means that there is a "blurring of the lines" between clocks, discs, processors, memory, networks and thermometers! I think that's ridiculous.