Interesting.
Peter has you in his killfile and he doesn't respond to you.
Dr Reay has you in his killfile and doesn't respond to you.
You have claimed to have both in you killfile but respond to them both. Seems mixed up to me.
I notice that ARB hasn't replied to this post, so I can only assume he agrees with it. Wonder if he has the courage to acknowledge his errors???
daestrom
If he's not a troll, he is one sick pup! He's been trolling under this pseudonym for some time (which is an anagram of one of his previous nemisis). He was trolling comp.arch recently with a wonderful idea for a mechanical Turing machine, thinking (I use ther term loosely) that Alan had to be working on mechanical beasts.
A half year ago he was berating an alt.folklore.computer regular for knowing nothing about computer histor, though the person he was talking to was in on the ground-floor of the DEC-10, among others. He couldn't even get the sex right.
He was sufficiently embarrased that even he decided to leave AFC and is likely sucking his tail still. You folks have been doing a good job of stuffing the troll too, BTW. ;-)
in article snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzz, keith at snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzz wrote on 12/05/2004 22:32:
...
i dunno which of us folks you mean, but us folks on comp.dsp are tired of it. i'd like to see the stuffing beaten out of this troll. this asshole is so transparently obnoxious for so long that the humor of the situation is long gone. and i haven't had to suffer from it as long as the others on comp.dsp.
he just wants to be loved. im close to him now, i know what area of the country he lives in.
won't be long before i can come along and save him, poor old bean.
dr. x
The Berlin News Server was inaccessible all day Saturday.
I was out on Sunday, and by the time I got in, most of the NG to which I subscribe (27) were running at over 100 posts - too much too deal with. Result - binned most of them without reading.
So, no, I neither agree nor disagree. Your post has remained unconsidered.
So, apologies to those of you who thought that they had contributed something technically worthwhile - feel free to repost it and I will consider what you say.
No apologies to those of you who may have contributed rather silly and childish ad hominem attacks. If there were any, I say to you.....shame on you, you should know better.
I am not a troll. That you do not agree with me does not make me one.
I never suggested that Alan Turing had to be thinking on mechanical lines - I merely said that it was the major technology extant at the time and that it would be interesting to make a Turing Machine mechanically. Insofar as Turing didn't make such a machine at the time of his paper, it is disingenuous to claim that he would have used other technologies in their infancy.
I have never been on a NG entitled, "comp.arch"... are you making this up as you go along in order to justify your childish burst of tantrum?
It is not possible to determine the sex of a contributor from the ASCII representation of their Internet Pseudonym.
I have never been embarrassed and felt that I had to leave a NG. However, when the Mongolian Hordes of infantile escapees from a school playground gang up, such as yourself quoted below, then there is no reason to encourage such behaviour in an international forum. If you say that I had something to be embarrassed about - then quote it here, and we'll carry on discussing it.....over to you.
This NG is an international public forum wherein one expects to see technical excellence.
It should be a place for enlightenment and reasoned technical discussion. It certainly used to be like that.
For some reason, best known only to yourself, you have chosen to turn it into an outpost of the infants' school playground using behaviour and emotional stances left behind years ago by mature contributors.
Such an exhibition by you does nothing for your reputation, nor for the well-being of this NG.
Shame on you.
You should know better.
Grow up, Keith!
The Diracian is so defined, and one therefore uses its definition in evaluating expressions using it.
No. The definition gives f(T) as a result without a consideration of how it got there.
If the evaluation was how you describe it below, then it would include attributes of t as addenda in the definition. It includes no such attributes. The only thing we know about it is that the evaluation of the integral over the complete domain of the independent variable yields as f(T).
I will accept what you propose below if you can present it in such a way that the first evaluation of the Diracian uses its defined characteristic of int -oo^+oo f(t).d(t-T) being f(T).
It seemed to me that if anyone wishes to argue as you do below, then you will be denying the availability of the definite integral too early on, but then you go on to use it at the same stage of the calculation.
No. Those are your deductions. They are not part of the definition.
If the definition does not help us in this approach. then what approach would you suggest for evaluating the LT of f(t).d(t-T)?
The discussion has already moved on from that point. Mr.Ullrich, before he went all infantile and insulting pointed out the need for an anti-derivative and not a definite integral, although he then tried to use the value of the definite integral to determine the anti-derivative.
I'll stop you there. to arrive at f(T), you need to integrate over the whole domain of +/- oo.
Once again, yuo are introducing a time-dependency in your integration evalution that is not present in the definition.
Up to that point I had made the mistake of taking you for a mature contributor.
Shame on you.
I would request that Mr "daestrom" remove uk.radio.amateur from any follow-ups he might make to Bean in this - and indeed any other - thread that he might so use.
It's not that we in ukra don't like to see Bean getting yet another drubbing (we have seen it many times on ukra), but that he chooses to reply in separate postings to each point that he wishes to make, which
- like changing the spelling of words in the thread title - is a very amateurish practice indeed. TIA
Wouldn't know about the vindictive or vicious, but if you're not a troll then you are indeed _very_ mixed up.
************************David C. Ullrich
I'm at lost. What point? That function isn't a delta function, but it's quite close to it, indeed. What if you substitute it for the delta, solve your problem (I'm at lost *what* problem, though) and, in the end, take the limit for eps->0? Would that work? Think so ...
Han de Bruijn
That the delta function is not continuous?
No, it isn't in any useful meaning of the word. It is about as close to the delta function as 1/n is to zero.
In some cases it might. In others, it won't. In particular, it does not work for stating that the delta function or its derivatives are continuous, much like you can't state that there exists an inverse of
0 since the inverse of (1/n) exists, and the limit for 1/n for n->infinity is 0.You need a lot of criteria to be true (that all involved functions have some limiting behavior consistent with those sorts of limit, for example) before such a process works, and this gets a lot more complicated when more than one function of such a kind is involved.
Distribution theory is not a whole complicated framework for nothing.
That the antiderivative of a delta function is not continuous. (That was in reply to Airy's question about why generalized functions were relevant here.)
Work for _what_? Would it work for showing that the antiderivative of a delta function is continuous, which is what Airy seemed to be trying to do? No.
************************David C. Ullrich
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.