Kevin Aylward wrote:
gwhite wrote:
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:
This discussion happens all the time on comp.dsp, between primarily
computer-science folks approaching DSP and EE types approaching it.
EE folks' definition of "linear" implicitly includes time invariance;
Interesting thought since a Signals and Systems course, or a Linear
Systems course, or a Communications course is often required to get an
EE degree. After all, these courses explicitly distinguish the
linearity property and the time-invariance property. And I've never
seen the "af(t) = f(at)" so-called "definition" until a few days ago.
Your a liar.
LOL.
Its that simple. I clearly stated that it was *not* a
definition.
"Linearity can more easily be expressed as: a(f(t)) = f(at)" -- Kevin
Aylward
I think someone is posting under your name. A nasty bit of business
that is.
It was simply trying to illustrate the concept of constant
gain. You expanding on some trivial minor point to avoid answering the
main issue, to wit, you have failed to disprove my claim on your class A
amplifier.
Class A works just fine in multipliers/modulators -- "non-linearity" of
circuit elements is not required. Maybe you can analyze the old
MC1496. That would be enlightening to you. But more important and more
simple (it will save you loads of time), just apply *the* linearity test
for
h(t)
x(t) - y(t).
The notion that y=x^2 is a non-linear equation is
universally accepted by anyone who has done even the slightest bit of
theory on basic algebraic equations. It does not require any
qualification in the slightest.
No ****, by why are you rambling on and on about it?
Show me one, and I mean just one, that
declares y=x^2 a linear equation.
That is clever -- you want me to "declare" something is true that I've
made no reference to. You are quite the inventor. Face it: you had an
incorrect notion about linearity. All the rest of your words are
twisting, squirming, and turning to try to save face after you acted
condescending (and still do) about a very simple matter. That's all.
|