Disappointed

Dear Adam,

Well booh hooh hooh :-) I'm not following the discussions about this, but for me it's been obvious all the time that you should _Never_ take a ng-post personally. If you think you're offended in any way, just stop the discussion. Don't do what you just did... ever!

He has won now, you know. And for good reason to, imho.

Hmm, I kindof feel like I have no right posting this, but I just had the urge ...

So long, Adam.

Rob.

I have not "won" in any sense of the word. I have not yet achieved what I set out to achieve which was, in part, to find a derivation of the LT for what is claimed by others to be the mathematical representation of sampling.

We are stuck on the evaluation of int -oo^+oo f(t).d(t).e^(-st)

There are those who have attempted to present the anti-derivative of f(t).d(t) but who have made the mistake of attempting to use the result of evaluating the definite integral before they have arrived at the indefinite integral.

Arguing a posteriori ISTR is the critique that applies.

"Rob Vermeulen" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...

8 years after and he's still no wiser, still he says himself he's a slow learner. From the archives:-

"Digital Signal Prcessing - A Practical Approach Authors : Emmanuel Ifeachor & Barrie Jervis Pub : Addison-Wesley ISBN : 0 201 54413 X

I found this to be a good book because I am a slow learner, and find "left as an exercise to the reader" or "it can be shown as" to be particularly infuriating. This book is an exception; in particular, the chapter on Correlation derives the formula by showing a developing series of possibilities that can each in turn be shot down for some reason.

After reading some books you can "do" DSP. After reading this book, you understand DSP.

I accept that this is my reaction to this particular book, after having read (and absorbed) information from a whole series of others. What is true for me is not necessarily true for others.

Is this the same Evans who was referred to in a posting by Airy R. Bean as 'prevailing' in a case of libel - as in "...I prevailed against them all"?

Well, well.

And since this has been shown to you and repeatedly explained in detail to you by multiple qualified people, including references to decent, respected texts, it is clear to many of the rest of us that you are not capable of recognizing achieving what you've set out to achieve. So our choices are limited, since an intellectual dialogue on the topic has clearly and repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective.

Many have genuinely tried to help you understand what you're interested in, but have been met with your indolence, insults, and erratic behavior in response. You label as childish or infantile those that try to help you but aren't willing to agree to your faulty view of your selected topic. That's not conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything else productive.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

"Does it really matter? The important thing is to gain some analogy to aid your understanding. When I am involved in teaching others, I always stress that they must make up their own minds, for each of us has a different way of thinking. I say to take opinions from as many people as possible, and not necessarily to pay heed to me, for my way of thinking may not be theirs."

You wrote that in a Change-Ringers list about five years ago. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems that your state of mind or outlook on such matters has changed substantially since then.

Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.

Once again you launch into an unveiled personal attack.

Shame on you for that.

I suggest that a number of people have ranted at me their illogically-held views and have refused to discuss points that I have raised which disagree with their viewpoint, but no-one has shown anything to me and certainly no-one has explained anything.

The torrent of personal remarks that has accompanied such ranting cannot be termed "intellectual dialogue" by any stretch of the imagination.

I certainly do not label as "childish or infantile" those who disagree with me, only those who resort to childish or infantile outbursts. It is those outbursts that are "not conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything else productive", and not my chastising of them.

"Change-Ringers List"? What is that? - you are confusing me with somebody else.

Your contribution below is of little value, being a continuation of a series of personal attacks from you - you do not come across as a worthy debater. Indeed, you are not debating and you are certainly not offering an "intellectual dialogue" in what you post below - an aggressive ad hominem attack as is your wont, but by no means an "intellectual dialogue".

Calm down softy, it's only a hobby.

OK Airy, time to put this to rest.

Are you, or are you not, Gareth Alun Evans, of Chippenham, Wiltshire?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you say yes, then clearly you have been lying and are guilty of=20 hypocrisy in this, and other recent, threads.

If you say no, then you were lying in an earlier post regarding the=20 matter of Hooley vs Evans, where you apparently triumphed over Mr Hooley=20 and three of the top barristers in the country, with the aid of a law=20 book (cost to you =A3350), although you did not buy the book.

Which is it to be? Can you give an honest answer to this, which will not=20 show you to be a fraud of the highest order?

thank bast!

thank you beanie. very interesting report as often. tell me where exactly it is that you live nd your callsign though, would be interested in that information, look forward to contacting you on the airwaves because you are such an excellent person

dr. x

Are you, or are you not, Gareth Alun Evans, of Chippenham, Wiltshire?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you say yes, then clearly you have been lying and are guilty of hypocrisy in this, and other recent, threads.

If you say no, then you were lying in an earlier post regarding the matter of Hooley vs Evans, where you apparently triumphed over Mr Hooley and three of the top barristers in the country, with the aid of a law book (cost to you £350), although you did not buy the book.

Which is it to be? Can you give an honest answer to this, which will not show you to be a fraud of the highest order?

LOL! Heads Beanie loses, tails Beanie loses. Proof (if it was ever needed) that Beanie is a loser. I wonder which will happen, a stock response such as 'STUPID BOY, GROW UP!' or 'ISP problems'?

No. _You_ are stuck on that. Nobody else is - it's incredibly trivial:

By definition, if g is a continuous function then

(i) int -oo^+oo g(t).d(t-a) = g(a).

Now fix s, and let g(t) = f(t) e^(-st). Then g is a continuous function, so (i) shows that

-oo^+oo f(t).d(t-a).e^(-st)

= int -oo^+oo g(t).d(t-a) = g(a) = f(a) e^(-as).

That's really all there is to it. You've said that some steps there are not valid, but you have not given any reason except just your assertion that I can't do that.

At least one such person made the mistake of trying to explain the result in a more complicated way, that conformed to the arbitrary and invalid restrictions you were imposing. I couldn't resist, since it's _so_ easy to show that the same result follows by methods you'd agreed were legal, but it was a mistake, since it seems to have given you the impression that there's some doubt about the validity of the much simpler proof above.

Note that there's a definite integral in (i). I was able to evaluate that definite integral without finding an indefinite integral first. How? Using the fact that (i) is true _by definition_. (True fact: The actual technical definition of delta(t-a) would involve a few technicalities, but what it amounts to is that delta(t-a) is something such that (i) holds. Or to put it another somewhat more precise way, g(a) is the definition of int -oo^+oo g(t).d(t-a) .)

Huh. You accuse _us_ of arguing out of our asses, in fancy Latin no less, but then you complain when we "lower the tone"? Shame on you.

(heh-heh. I kinda like that one...)

David C. Ullrich

How so?

Whatever.

My point exactly. You repeatedly demonstrate the inability to realize what's going on around you.

Which personal remarks and ranting?

Must be a different Gareth Alun Evans in Chippenham with your old email address. BTW, I was in Chippenham last spring. I would've stopped by for a pint had I known what a friendly chap you are.

It wasn't an attempt at a debate, and I don't hold out much hope of having an intellectual dialogue with you unless you change your behavior.

So which part was the ad hominem attack?

Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.

It's true. I remember trying to explain patiently my perspective on "the sampling problem" a year or two ago. Airy and I had several technical exchanges back and forth, asking questions and making things clearer, until one day he wigged out at me for no reason! I ignored it the first time but then he kept it up.

People are complicated. Usually, if we want to know something really badly, we'll change and work for it. Emotions and logic work together to accomplish this. But, sometimes, emotions get hooked up backwards, making problems worse instead of better.

Sometimes, when our words are overemphasized, like usenet tends to do, they don't match up with our actual thoughts and actions. I believe whatever's going on with ARB has very little to do with sampling, and is more the artifacts of some complex situation, that I am certainly not prepared to deal with.

ARB's stubbornness could be a real asset to an essential part of DSP technology or even something else, but I think he'll have to overcome his personal issues first. I wish I could offer more than the usual comforts: vacation, fresh air, an afternoon laughing with a good friend, lawnchairs, frisbee, roadtrips, chocolate, etc.

For now, Airy, I hope you seek the attention of someone who can understand you in a way better than any of us could.

No guarantee, just a try. Maybe the misunderstanding is in the d(t). As you define it, is it the Gaussian function with a very small spread?

Han de Bruijn

Yep. It could even be sig fodder. I was hoping you could find a method that would unwedge his head.

/BAH

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Your ignorance of the meaning of standard Latin as applied to acadaemic debate is astounding.

Why do you need to lower the tone and refer to "asses"? In any case, why do you not use the correct English word, "Arses", for the crude context to which you refer? Your ignorance of standard English is astounding.

Would the headmaster of the infants school at which you teach be concerned that one of his teachers is so ignorant and thereby publishing such regular _BAD_ PR for his school?

Shame on you.

Au contraire - following your assertion that my original expression of the Integration By Parts was wrong (and I agree that it was) because I was using a definite integral before having fully evaluated an anti-derivative, you then went on to use the result of a definite integral, f(T)u(t-T) to justify your production of the indefinite integral or anti-derivative.

Therefore, you were using the conclusion of the definite integral to derive the anti-derivative from which the definite integral is evaluated. Therefore you were arguing a posteriori.

Insofar as f(t) is defined generically and could be t, t^2,e^t,sin t, cos t, tan t, t e^t or even.... sin t. e^(-st) you may have a point.

It does however, leave a question unanswered, and that is, what is the identity giving the anti-derivative of a(t).b(t).c(t)? That you never provided this suggests that you are ignorant to a degree about mathematics. (I have never purported to be omniscient in mathematics)

The question also remains as to why you were psychologically incapable of responding to this NG without indulging in so much infantile and gratuitous aggression, a trait which is undesirable in anyone who is charged with responsibility for the education of our youngsters, and therefore a trait for which termination of employment should be sought?

Are you suggesting that usenet is undersampling ARB, (even though the process is complex, and so sampling at one times the bandwidth should suffice), and that a higher sample-rate medium would make everything clearer? TV? Ham radio? I'm not sure that I could deal with that any more easily.

:-)

Cheers,