Derivation Of The Spectrum Due To f(t).d(t - T)?????

There is nothing amiss about deleting posts that are a thinly-disguised vehicles for delivering infantile abuse, such as yours below.

Shame on you - you should know better if you claim 20 years experience as an expert.

No expert needs to hind behind abusive and infantile tirades.

As with all escapees from the infants' school playground, I invite you to repost any technically relevant posts, but without your childish and unnecessary infantile outpourings - then I will deal with the points raised.

I assume that "okstate.edu" is some form of infants' school and that you are copying the behaviour of your pupils?

At one time on uk.radio.amateur, Bean, in one of his previous sock-puppets, had requested help with a technical problem with an off-the-shelf amateur transceiver he had bought. He received a number of helpful, technically-based replies and suggestions.

It came as little surprise that it was at that precise moment he suffered an ISP failure, and never saw the replies.

He was the only one on the ng who used that particular ISP who reported such a failure.....

FUs set to remove uk.radio.amateur.

(1/root(2.PI.N)).e^(t^2/n^2) is pretty continuous.

dear OK state math student -

you stated

1) note that Dwayne also said -

2) and I do NOT remember the original equation being a variable in two parts of the form u (x,y), but rather a dirac function of the form u (t).

so why do you bring up u (x,y)?

and you are now claiming that Laplace transforms are somehow incorrect for solving an equation of the original form?

3) I refer you to Dr Ogata's ( U of Minn) book on control systems, page 29-30, and Drs Cadzow and Martens (UNY Buffalo) book on Discrete time and computer control system page 23 in which they use laplace transforms to solve the same equation form - the very same equation, if I am not mistaken.

They have no out-their-ass "anti-derivatives not integrals" or "laplacian not laplace transforms" BS . Just a simple solution of the dirac delta using laplace transforms

----> so is the OK state math department now teaching that one of the very foundations of modern discrete time control is invalid, and thus Oklahopa State is holding that computers do not work?

Or is it just one student who is in a little deep?

---inquiring minds want to know

Errm - ISTR that the Laplacian is something from Vector calculus - del squared, but don't ask for a further info - it's some time since I looked at Elec & Mag theory.

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

Yet, he posted a detailed analysis of your errors in your 'integration by parts' of the posited function.

If you stay focused on the problem at hand, you would see that your mistakes have been pointed out to you. Then you can learn from your mistakes.

daestrom

Unfortunately, although he claimed to have posted such, it was masked by his over-riding urge to be insulting and was therefore not seen by me.

If he would care to repeat his article, but devoid of gratuitous personal remarks, then I would be happy to respond. I have challenged a number of posers in this respect, but all have declined to reply without their spleen a'venting, which leads me to question that they had a genuine contribution to offer in the first place.

Sic transit gloria Mundi.

I _AM_ focussed on the problem at hand and will not have anything to do with childish outbursts.

There were no personal attacks for you to snip. Defence in asserting the right of reply, maybe, but no attacks.

Airy The expression Bollocks springs to mind as far as your diatribes are concerned. Marco

Well, here is what David C. Ullrich posted.... (lines with >> are from Airy R. Bean's previous post, those preceded by '>' are from David C. Ullrich's pose, my comments are embedded with '*>

My bad. I called it by the wrond name but it is the right function.

Dwayne

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:38:43 -0000, Airy R. Bean put forth the notion that...

Because of your over-riding urge to be insulted.

Hey Airy,

check this out!

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:03:29 -0000, Airy R. Bean put forth the notion that...

That's what clueless newbies always say.

How does your "Indefinite Integral" or ("Antiderivative") differ from a "Definite Integral" when the limits of integration are imposed?

I disagree that it is wrong. The operation being undertaken is "Integration By Parts" and therefore Integration is required and not Anti-Differentiation.

My " f(T).e^(-st)" is the result of evaluating U.int(V), and, as it is part of a sum, evaluting the integral between the limits of 0^oo to save further tedious writing.

The evaluation yields f(T) which is a constant and is a graphed as a horizontal straight line having no expression of time in its evaluation.

This is fundamental to the definition of the Diracian, where no other properties are specified. This property is used in other aspects of DSP and so it must be used consistently here.

Your argument falls down when T = 0, giving "t -T" as just "t", for then F(0) = f(0), and not 0.