Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG.

From: mathedman (mathedman_at_hotmail.CUT.com)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:29:06 GMT

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

 Why don't you and James Harris collaborate
and solve all the major outstanding problems.

>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.
>
>
>