Difficulties in understanding e^(-jwt)

in these newsgroups on 13 Dec 2003, the following is asserted.....
"The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which is a value that decreases as t increasing. "
Surely this is quite wrong?
Surely e^(-jwt) is a cyclic phenomenon, the value, or modulus, of which remains absolutely constant and of the value unity?

  Quoted Text Here  
I remember it well. I later found out that the statement was correct.
Blair

  Quoted Text Here  
On a daily basis, this NG is a forum seemingly for escapees from the school playground, with gratuitous and offensive personal remarks originating from even those who have not been part of a conversation and who could have no reason, other than uncontrolled infantile emotions, for interjecting as they do.
Is such public and international demonstrations really the way forward; the way for PR for the future of Ham Radio. I say, "No!".
I cannot see how something that is a technical pursuit with traditions of gentlemanly behaviour could possibly give way to the childish sneering that is typical of this NG."
Really Blair, the number of times you appear here with the intention of flinging infantile insults says more about you than perhaps you had hoped for.
Grow up, Blair!

  Quoted Text Here  
Unfortunately, another obsessive post from my stalker, Nathan Hull, G7KUJ.

  Quoted Text Here  
Pray tell how you figured that one out?! No wonder you are unemployable - your logic is perma-flawed!!!

On 8/24/07 11:38 AM, in article
  Quoted Text Here  
There are too many people trying to teach a pig how to sing.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
He needs to learn how to crawl first....

On 8/22/07 10:07 AM, in article fahqgi$sp3$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org, "Anonymous."
  Quoted Text Here  
Please do not take this the wrong way. You need a bit more experience and understanding in order to interpret this notation well.
e^(jwt) = exp(jwt) or e^(-jwt) = exp(-jwt) is talking about mathematical notation. exp(jwt) = cos(wt) + j*sin(wt). If you do not understand that and how to get the equivalent for exp(-jwt), you should not go any further until you understand the mathematics in terms of elementary exponential and trigonometric functions and complex notation. There is no point in moving on to electrical applications unless you are willing to settle for monkey see, monkey do.
This notation is usefully applied to electrical circuits and other applications because derivatives of exponential functions are the same functions except for scale factors. If you used sines and cosines, you would get similar (sine wave) functions but shifted in time. It turns out, in the long run, that the conversion to imaginary exponentials makes life simpler than using mixed sine and cosine expressions.
For most lumped linear circuits, analysis consists of solving a linear differential equation (DE) with constant coefficients driven by a sine wave. The conversion to complex notation converts the solution of the DE into the solution of a polynomial algebraic equation.
Bill
-- Fermez le Bush--less than 18 months to go.

  Quoted Text Here  
You are incapable of admitting when you are in the wrong.
Your response above is that of a disruptive maladjusted child, squirming evasively, changing the subject and lashing out.
Shame on you, Salmon Egg.
Grow up! Stupid boy!

On 8/22/07 1:50 PM, in article fai7cn$1h5$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org, "Anonymous"
  Quoted Text Here  
I am sorry for you, but not what I posted.

"Salmon Egg" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
He's acting true to form. You give him an opinion which he doesn't like and he slags you off.
And you wonder why the OP is unemployed and unemployable.
What he doesn't realise is that most employers now do websearches to determine the strengths, weaknesses and overall merits of a prospective employee.

  Quoted Text Here  
Unfortunately you have responded to one of my stalkers and not to me.
He is Nathan Hull with the CB Handle of G7KUJ and posts with the id of "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org". Many of his posts are parodies of what I post and for many months he has masqueraded as me, and usually adopts the pseudonym that I do shortly after I change pseudonym because of his harassment, in this case "Anonymous".
Nathan Hull is one sick, sick kiddie.
I post with the id of "Z3IpgFh83JnnDIiU15n1gQ.user.aioe.org".
However, I note that you feel sorry for him, as do I.
(I had already responded to your first post)

  Quoted Text Here  
It's not me.. how many more times!

  Quoted Text Here  
Beanie can do that. He's the biggest monkey in this NG!

which was
  Quoted Text Here  
Thank-you for your extended reply. Unfortunately you have missed the boat. The point of my posts was to draw attention to the heinous error, "is a value that decreases as t increasing" which was published by a teacher of mathematics in Britland.

"Anonymous."> Please do not take this the wrong way. You need a bit more experience and
  Quoted Text Here  
No, he needs to be reborn.. this time as a non meths drinking, sheep shagging, bell ringing freak!

  Quoted Text Here  
-- It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real numbers. You have it right but in light of your reaction to Salmon Egg's comments, it seems that you really don't know why. He was simply pointing out that you should know that and what he said is absolutely correct. Your reaction to his comment was rather childish.
Look up Euler's equation and the whole concept of complex numbers
e^jwt =cos(wt-jsin(wt)
e^-jwt =cos(wt)-jsin(wt) which happens to be 1/e^jwt

> It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real numbers.
No, it is based on looking at the direction of rotation- CCW or CW. Taking CCW as +ve (the normal convention), CW is -ve. So a CCW rotation increases the argument whereas a CW rotation decreases it. Around time the original post was made Anonymous (under one of his many aliases) had been posting of negative frequency and the context was clear to all but him. His confusion is clear enough, especially as he recently added the word "size" into his argument (as in "his case", not angle).
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, that is normal of for him. Over the years, I've tried to educate this fellow (as have many others) and he always reacts like this. Sometimes I just leave him to rant on, he seems happier that way.
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm sure you mean:
e^jwt = cos (wt) + jsin (wt)
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, I remember showing the sock puppeteer that on one of the newsgroups. He has previously claimed that division isn't valid in complex numbers.
Unless you want him stomping all over alt.engineering.electrical, I suggest you let him stew.

  Quoted Text Here  
Brian Reay is unfortunately another person who has been stalking me for several years and is well aware that the person who posts under "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org" is not I.

  Quoted Text Here  
I think I can see where your misunderstanding arises. (In Britland, this is easily covered by KS2, so see if you can sit it on a class given by a competent maths teacher)
If there had been previously some rotation CCW, then a rotation CW would represent a decrease BUT ONLY UNTIL THE ANGLE CAME BACK TO ZERO, at which point the angle would then grow in a negative direction, INCREASING.
However, this is all by the way. In the function e^(-jwt) there NEVER WAS ANY CCW ROTATION, so that a statement to the effect, " 1/(e^jwt) which is a value that decreases as t increasing" is just plain hogwash and pig-ignorance and would be dangerous if made by a schoolteacher.