The only persons employment you have terminated by your childish attitude softy is your own, several times....
Steve H
The only persons employment you have terminated by your childish attitude softy is your own, several times....
Steve H
Then it is clear that it is your intention to troll.
Shame on you.
I have not been on Usenet for two years.
There have been a total of 7 posters using the pseudonym, "Airy.R.Bean" I suggest that you rail at the other 6.
I would never "wig out" unless > > Many have genuinely tried to help you understand what you're
Well, that's what I suggested.
It then leaves us, because it is now continuous, with the need to find an identity for the anti-derivative of a(t).b(t).c(t). I know of none apart from applying Integration By Parts twice, but, as has been pointed out, it is erroneous to evaluate a definite integral prematurely before determining the total anti-derivative.
Those (Ullrich, Daestrom) who tried to correct me up>
Stupid boy.
Your inability to recognize a (silly) joke is hilarious.
As I said, I was kinda pleased with coming up with the humorous misreading of "a posteriori". The really good part was I was pretty sure you'd have no idea it was a joke - makes my say.
************************David C. Ullrich
Of course I have a point. (It's not _my_ point, as I said in my first post this is all perfectly standard stuff that you can find in almost any text on differential equations. Also many other places.)
Uh, first, you never asked this question. Second, there is no such identity (unless you're talking about integration by parts - I wouldn't call that an answer to the question you raise here but if you want to call it that fine). Finally, _I_ never claimed to know everything.
Guffaw. You never purported to be omniscient. All you've claimed is that you're right about this Laplace transform and every textbook on the planet is wrong.
Yeah, that question remains. Giggle.
Hint: Above you say I may have a point. I stated exactly the same point in my very first reply in this thread (that may not be at the top of the thread from your point of view, it's the first reply after you began the cross-post to sci.math.) If you had any sense your reply to my first post would have been "Oh, I see - I didn't realize that was simply true by definition." Or "you may have a point" would as above would have been close. Or "I don't quite follow that, could you explain in more detail?" would have been perfectly appropriate.
Instead you replied with nonsense about how I was not allowed to consider a certain continuous function in (i), and more nonsense about what the only valid methods here were.
************************David C. Ullrich
Uh, no. An antiderivative _is_ a definite integral, just a definite integral from -infinity to x.
************************David C. Ullrich
I have never made any statement to the effect that every textbook on the planet is wrong.
Are you making this up as you go along in order to be seen to be the winner in some pissing-in-the- playground competition?
Your response suggests that psychology is certainly a consideration.
Make your mind up - you said originally that I could not use a definite integral in the presentation of Integration By Parts and had to use an anti-derivative.
Now you say that an anti-derivative is a definite integral.
It would seem by your continuing changing of tack that your purpose here is that of a troll.
What is "x" in the evaluation of an anti-derivative of f(t)?
What is the significance of "-infinity" in the evaluation of the Unilateral Laplace Transform?
I recognised a silly person.
The silliness of the feeble joke reinforced the perception that the silly person was childish and an unsuitable candidate to be given the responsibility of educating young people. Perhaps you could publish contact details for the headmaster at the infants' school at which you apparently "teach", for want of a better word?
Isvand i blodet.
Yeah, perhaps I could.
It feels really awful, being the only person who's being silly. Guffaw.
************************David C. Ullrich
Guffaw.
************************David C. Ullrich
No. You cannot use the integral from -infinity to infinity.
It's an unfortunate fact that an indefinite integral is in fact a definite integral, with a variable for the upper limit.
************************David C. Ullrich
] It's an unfortunate fact that an indefinite integral ] is in fact a definite integral, with a variable for ] the upper limit.
Unfortunately, I've never seen an indefinite integral defined that way.
See, e.g.,
Peter K.
You now come across as a gibbering fool in your response below.
A better response would be for you to produce the evidence of your assertion or else be recognised as a troll.
I have never made any statement to the effect that every textbook on the planet is wrong.
:-)
The notation is so bad that it hardly even serves as an aid to memory. You start with a function of x, integrate out the variable x, and end up with a function of x. That is about as clear as the routine about the baseball player Who who was on first. It is also not clear who was there before him.
The more careful folks usually define the antiderivative or indefinite integral as a definite integral from some fixed point to the variable in the anti-derivative. The ambiguity of choosing the starting point converts into the "constant of integration". It gets very tiring putting in all those lexographical symbols, particularly if you have poor mathematical typesetting software, but they do lower the confusion for those who have not been told what notational and expositional shortcuts are being taken.
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.