Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG.

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:19:13 -0600

Classic crackpot. If nobody says you're wrong you must
be right. But if a large number of people say you're wrong
it follows you must be right as well.

Things must be very pleasant in your little world.

Btw, since you don't seem to have noticed my post
where I reply to your request to show _where_ your
integration by parts fails: When I said that
integration by parts does not apply because delta
is not a continuous I was assuming that you
were making one sort of moderately subtle error.
Hadn't looked at the actual argument you gave.
In case you didn't see that post, in your
integration by parts you simply do the basic
calculus wrong.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:38:29 -0000, "Airy R. Bean" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>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.
>
>

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages