Kevin Aylward wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
gwhite wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

In summary, there are differing concepts of what linearity is being
understood to mean in the real world.


No again. Those who are confused about it, and can't admit they are
simply wrong about what amounts to a widely accepted definitional
matter, simply take refuge by obscuring the basics with a bunch of junk
similar to:

"therefore

Vo = 40.Vc.Vi/Re."


The simple fact is you are wrong in thinking you can all of the sudden
make up your own definition of linearity, or carry forward without
challenge the mistaken definition of others. You were right about one
thing: this matter of linearity is pretty basic. You missed it; you are
wrong, that is no big deal. The silly part was when you decided to be
condescending about it, for in most practical matters strict linearity
doesn't matter a lot -- most people know what they are doing well enough
such that the accepted definition of linearity is not explicitly
referred to.

I don't have time tonight to provide cited work (I have one from Lahti
that will be particularly useful for this discussion), since it takes
scanning and OCR time and then patch up -- I will do so soon though.
In short, you believe "non-linearity" is *required* for modulators; that
is incorrect. You confuse the time-invariance property with the
linearity property. You believe LTI systems are the *only* linear
systems -- they are not according to the widely accepted and published
definition of linearity. It is that simple. I gave you an example and
worked the solution for you, but still you resist.

You nor anyone else need take my word for it: it is in *all* the
Signals, Systems, and Communications texts I've ever opened up -- they
are wholly consistant with each other; check for yourself. Your
"definition" is not in any of them (af(t) = f(at)???). So I feel
justified in simply saying you are flatly wrong. If you could at least
post a citation from a text that has your definition and a worked
mathematical problem/solution (no "Circuits" junk), then at least we
could say it was all a grand misunderstanding.


I must confess here I made a small error.

What wasn't small is your reaction to your "small error." All that
"pretentious drivel" wasn't so pretentious given the fact it is *basic
stuff* that most who've taken the appropriate classes already know (it
was a couple definitions and an application using a couple simple trig
identities and no more really). That is, the basics which put down your
little rebellion against a well established definition.

{pretentious drivel sniped}

LOL