Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG.
From: Airy R. Bean (me_at_privacy.net)
Date: 12/01/04
- Next message: W. Dale Hall: "Re: Embedding theorem and uniqueness?"
- Previous message: Jürgen R.: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Next in thread: Spike: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: Spike: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: Robin Chapman: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: mathedman: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: Marco: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:38:29 -0000
It is interesting the size of "the amount of posts".
If I am wrong in what I say, it would be a simple
matter to ignore me and what I posit.
That so many people, people who would seek to
represent themselves as authorities, respond with
emotional postings that do not address the
points raised, seems to suggest that I am not wrong, and that
they are embarrassed about a basic failing in their
professed knowledge and so feel threatened.
"the amount of posts", posts that are non-technical and
of an undesirable ad hominem style has reached such a
scale that I have binned them all this morning.
This leaves just one point that has not yet been addressed, and
that is, that any mathematical analysis of a real system must,
to be respectable, deal with measurements of that system.
There is no system of which I am aware that has sampling
pulses whose measurements match those of the Diracian
Impulse...
1. Their amplitudes do not approach infinity.
2. Their areas do not approach unity.
3. In any case, the operation of f(t).d(t - T) is not
defined unless under an integral sign, and cannot be
evaluated unless under that integral sign.
4. The evaluation of the spectrum of the Diracian relies
on it being over all time, -oo^+oo. It is improper, therefore,
to attempt to evaluate other operations using the Diracian
with a reduced domain, and yet still rely on the spectrum
derivation.
"D.K." <qn_42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da3707b7.0411300808.2aa5e685@posting.google.com...
> From the amount
> of posts that it has generated, it stands to reason that you are
> unlikely to get a response suitable to you from them.
- Next message: W. Dale Hall: "Re: Embedding theorem and uniqueness?"
- Previous message: Jürgen R.: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Next in thread: Spike: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: Spike: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: Robin Chapman: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: mathedman: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Reply: Marco: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
