Disappointed

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?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only persons employment you have terminated by your childish attitude softy is your own, several times....
Steve H
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Guffaw.
************************
David C. Ullrich
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But you are an insane top-poster! Who could possibly care what you think or say? Now, if you were to abandon top-posting, you would come across as a gentle soul, a profound thinker, an eminently reasonable person.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nothing wrong with top posting.
Better than bottom posting because you get to see the new contribution without having to page down through a tedium of historical and oft-repeated garbage.
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
* Airy R. Bean

No, that is not true. One edit the previous texts so that _only_ what is necessary remains.
--
Jon Haugsand
Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto: snipped-for-privacy@ifi.uio.no
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What insane rambling is this? Surely you realize that if you gave up top-posting, you would be revered as a saint, admired and listened to as though you were Einstein and Newton combined with Gauss?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stupid boy.
Was it your intention to be a troll?
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sorry to hear that you are content to ramble insanely, when you could be the darling of the civilized universe, just by ceasing this absurd top-posting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stupid boy.
Was it your intention to appear to be a troll?
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surely not! I believe you are a genius, if you could only stop top-posting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your response suggests that psychology is certainly a consideration.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Another pattern that I've noticed, which isn't unusual in the general populace but seems to be amplified with Gareth, is that he latches on to something that somebody written to him and then uses it repeatedly. For example, if I have it correctly, somebody used "ad hominem" to describe how he was arguing (appropriately, I might add), and now we see him use it to excess.
Recently a few folks have hinted around the psychology of the situation and now we see this come out.

Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is clear that it is your intention to troll.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ohh beanie, how lovely you are!
crystal thinks so too!

--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Airy R. Bean wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

  • - the site's newest thread. Posted in

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.