|
Kevin Aylward wrote...
With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and with all due respect to Winfred... Who's Winfred? :) Thanks, - Win |
Kevin Aylward wrote...
With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and with all due respect to Winfred... Who's Winfred? :) Thanks, - Win |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution. I know, Kev. I read it years ago. That is to say, I read 80% or so of it before ripping it in half and tossing it out of the window of the train I was travelling on at the time, Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? much to the surprise of my fellow passengers. Rather annoyingly, I can't now recall what exactly Dawkins had said at that point that provoked such a reaction on my part. The only other book I ever tore up was the Count of Monte Cristo, two pages before the end. But that's by the by. Anyway, I went on to read Dawkins' magnum opus, the Blind Watchmaker in which he refined and to a great extent, retracted on his selfish gene theory. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. It's a magnificent book and probably the most important one anyone could ever read in their lives. I suggest you get a copy and study it carefully. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. While you're at it, get hold of Geoffrey Miller's the Mating Mind which is his brilliant refinement of the handicap principle in sexual selection - Darwin's 'other' theory. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I've read a great deal more about evolution than you might imagine, Kev. Once again you fail to recognise that others might actually know more about any given subject than you do. When this happens you end up looking really stoopid by virtue of your monumental pomposity and supercilliousness. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does things for the benefit of others. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. One must appreciate that Darwin did not know the specific mechanisms of evolution, and Dawkins, did not at first see the *general* bigger, picture of what genes were. The true "global" theory of "life" is not organisms, or genes or menes, its about Replicators. The Replicator is an *abstract* object from which general properties can be deduced about any object that satisfies the axioms of Replicators. The theory of replicators is correct by construction. I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of replicators. Axioms: [patronising lecture snipped] If you actually understood those axioms, its a cut and dried case. The axioms lead to some absolute conclusions. *Anything* satisfying those axioms *must* result in its conclusions. All one has to do is to show some particular object satisfies those axioms. Its like mathematical group theory. One you show something satisfies the group axioms, its a done deal. Look, given sets of Replicators, if any replicator is consistently better at replicating than another, given enough time, those particular Replicators *have* to dominate to the exclusion of all others. For example, a 1% advantage over 1000 generations, is 20,959. So if the populations of the replicators were initially equal, after 1000 generations, the ratio would be 20,959/1. If a particular replicator, happens to aid another replicator'ss replication, at the net expense of its own, it must, by simple mathematics, be completely overrun by the replicators it has aided. Thus true and absolute "selfishness" can not be sustained in a system of a group of Replicators. The theory also explains why people don't like to be thought of as selfish. Its abundantly clear that helping others, e.g in a group, is beneficial to the individual members own replication. For example, who has the best chance for avoiding a kick-in on the way home from the pub. A lone walker, or the gang of 5 skinheads. The obvious issue with being too selfish, is that if you don't reciprocate help, people wont give you help back, such that you cannot replicate as well as those that do cooperate together. Indeed, this is an example of a "handicap". A first order mathematical analysis would indicate that helping others would be detrimental, i.e. that paricular trait is a handicap, when in fact a detailed mathematical analysis can show that net benefits are achieved from that trait. Its the final probability of improved replication that matters. Fundamentally, we *all* *have* to be selfish at the root level. We are the result of the most successful Replicators, from millions and millions of years of evolution. It can't be any other way. Unfortunately, most can't like this simple fact, so deny it. Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. Blowing your own trumpet ain't going to get you anywhere, m8. When the likes of Win, Jim You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Sadly, none of us can be objective about ourselves. No. Some can, some can't. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. e.g. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html Who is tony? And, yes, it would be fair to say Win and Jim (Thompson) do indeed accept me as an individual with rather significant knowledge and experience. It would also be fair to say that I have corrected them at times, and supplied them with knowledge also unknown to them, as I have likewise gained a few bits and bobs from them. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Woops! Bit of a step back for you there, then, Kev. There was me thinking you did. :-) Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. Well I can't disagree with you on that last sentence. And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs. Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. The class c amplifier is non linear in detailed operation but the envelope of the output is still linearly related to the modulating input signal. Excellent! Now why didn't you just say that in the first place? There is simple too much information. One just assumes that people are using the same understanding for terms in a given context. e.g. saturation in one context means normal operating conditions, in another, it isn't. Indeed, in another it means the transistor got wet! Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution. I know, Kev. I read it years ago. That is to say, I read 80% or so of it before ripping it in half and tossing it out of the window of the train I was travelling on at the time, Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? much to the surprise of my fellow passengers. Rather annoyingly, I can't now recall what exactly Dawkins had said at that point that provoked such a reaction on my part. The only other book I ever tore up was the Count of Monte Cristo, two pages before the end. But that's by the by. Anyway, I went on to read Dawkins' magnum opus, the Blind Watchmaker in which he refined and to a great extent, retracted on his selfish gene theory. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. It's a magnificent book and probably the most important one anyone could ever read in their lives. I suggest you get a copy and study it carefully. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. While you're at it, get hold of Geoffrey Miller's the Mating Mind which is his brilliant refinement of the handicap principle in sexual selection - Darwin's 'other' theory. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I've read a great deal more about evolution than you might imagine, Kev. Once again you fail to recognise that others might actually know more about any given subject than you do. When this happens you end up looking really stoopid by virtue of your monumental pomposity and supercilliousness. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does things for the benefit of others. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. One must appreciate that Darwin did not know the specific mechanisms of evolution, and Dawkins, did not at first see the *general* bigger, picture of what genes were. The true "global" theory of "life" is not organisms, or genes or menes, its about Replicators. The Replicator is an *abstract* object from which general properties can be deduced about any object that satisfies the axioms of Replicators. The theory of replicators is correct by construction. I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of replicators. Axioms: [patronising lecture snipped] If you actually understood those axioms, its a cut and dried case. The axioms lead to some absolute conclusions. *Anything* satisfying those axioms *must* result in its conclusions. All one has to do is to show some particular object satisfies those axioms. Its like mathematical group theory. One you show something satisfies the group axioms, its a done deal. Look, given sets of Replicators, if any replicator is consistently better at replicating than another, given enough time, those particular Replicators *have* to dominate to the exclusion of all others. For example, a 1% advantage over 1000 generations, is 20,959. So if the populations of the replicators were initially equal, after 1000 generations, the ratio would be 20,959/1. If a particular replicator, happens to aid another replicator'ss replication, at the net expense of its own, it must, by simple mathematics, be completely overrun by the replicators it has aided. Thus true and absolute "selfishness" can not be sustained in a system of a group of Replicators. The theory also explains why people don't like to be thought of as selfish. Its abundantly clear that helping others, e.g in a group, is beneficial to the individual members own replication. For example, who has the best chance for avoiding a kick-in on the way home from the pub. A lone walker, or the gang of 5 skinheads. The obvious issue with being too selfish, is that if you don't reciprocate help, people wont give you help back, such that you cannot replicate as well as those that do cooperate together. Indeed, this is an example of a "handicap". A first order mathematical analysis would indicate that helping others would be detrimental, i.e. that paricular trait is a handicap, when in fact a detailed mathematical analysis can show that net benefits are achieved from that trait. Its the final probability of improved replication that matters. Fundamentally, we *all* *have* to be selfish at the root level. We are the result of the most successful Replicators, from millions and millions of years of evolution. It can't be any other way. Unfortunately, most can't like this simple fact, so deny it. Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. Blowing your own trumpet ain't going to get you anywhere, m8. When the likes of Win, Jim You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Sadly, none of us can be objective about ourselves. No. Some can, some can't. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. e.g. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html Who is tony? And, yes, it would be fair to say Win and Jim (Thompson) do indeed accept me as an individual with rather significant knowledge and experience. It would also be fair to say that I have corrected them at times, and supplied them with knowledge also unknown to them, as I have likewise gained a few bits and bobs from them. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Woops! Bit of a step back for you there, then, Kev. There was me thinking you did. :-) Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. Well I can't disagree with you on that last sentence. And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs. Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. The class c amplifier is non linear in detailed operation but the envelope of the output is still linearly related to the modulating input signal. Excellent! Now why didn't you just say that in the first place? There is simple too much information. One just assumes that people are using the same understanding for terms in a given context. e.g. saturation in one context means normal operating conditions, in another, it isn't. Indeed, in another it means the transistor got wet! Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution. I know, Kev. I read it years ago. That is to say, I read 80% or so of it before ripping it in half and tossing it out of the window of the train I was travelling on at the time, Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? much to the surprise of my fellow passengers. Rather annoyingly, I can't now recall what exactly Dawkins had said at that point that provoked such a reaction on my part. The only other book I ever tore up was the Count of Monte Cristo, two pages before the end. But that's by the by. Anyway, I went on to read Dawkins' magnum opus, the Blind Watchmaker in which he refined and to a great extent, retracted on his selfish gene theory. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. It's a magnificent book and probably the most important one anyone could ever read in their lives. I suggest you get a copy and study it carefully. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. While you're at it, get hold of Geoffrey Miller's the Mating Mind which is his brilliant refinement of the handicap principle in sexual selection - Darwin's 'other' theory. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I've read a great deal more about evolution than you might imagine, Kev. Once again you fail to recognise that others might actually know more about any given subject than you do. When this happens you end up looking really stoopid by virtue of your monumental pomposity and supercilliousness. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does things for the benefit of others. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. One must appreciate that Darwin did not know the specific mechanisms of evolution, and Dawkins, did not at first see the *general* bigger, picture of what genes were. The true "global" theory of "life" is not organisms, or genes or menes, its about Replicators. The Replicator is an *abstract* object from which general properties can be deduced about any object that satisfies the axioms of Replicators. The theory of replicators is correct by construction. I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of replicators. Axioms: [patronising lecture snipped] If you actually understood those axioms, its a cut and dried case. The axioms lead to some absolute conclusions. *Anything* satisfying those axioms *must* result in its conclusions. All one has to do is to show some particular object satisfies those axioms. Its like mathematical group theory. One you show something satisfies the group axioms, its a done deal. Look, given sets of Replicators, if any replicator is consistently better at replicating than another, given enough time, those particular Replicators *have* to dominate to the exclusion of all others. For example, a 1% advantage over 1000 generations, is 20,959. So if the populations of the replicators were initially equal, after 1000 generations, the ratio would be 20,959/1. If a particular replicator, happens to aid another replicator'ss replication, at the net expense of its own, it must, by simple mathematics, be completely overrun by the replicators it has aided. Thus true and absolute "selfishness" can not be sustained in a system of a group of Replicators. The theory also explains why people don't like to be thought of as selfish. Its abundantly clear that helping others, e.g in a group, is beneficial to the individual members own replication. For example, who has the best chance for avoiding a kick-in on the way home from the pub. A lone walker, or the gang of 5 skinheads. The obvious issue with being too selfish, is that if you don't reciprocate help, people wont give you help back, such that you cannot replicate as well as those that do cooperate together. Indeed, this is an example of a "handicap". A first order mathematical analysis would indicate that helping others would be detrimental, i.e. that paricular trait is a handicap, when in fact a detailed mathematical analysis can show that net benefits are achieved from that trait. Its the final probability of improved replication that matters. Fundamentally, we *all* *have* to be selfish at the root level. We are the result of the most successful Replicators, from millions and millions of years of evolution. It can't be any other way. Unfortunately, most can't like this simple fact, so deny it. Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. Blowing your own trumpet ain't going to get you anywhere, m8. When the likes of Win, Jim You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Sadly, none of us can be objective about ourselves. No. Some can, some can't. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. e.g. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html Who is tony? And, yes, it would be fair to say Win and Jim (Thompson) do indeed accept me as an individual with rather significant knowledge and experience. It would also be fair to say that I have corrected them at times, and supplied them with knowledge also unknown to them, as I have likewise gained a few bits and bobs from them. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Woops! Bit of a step back for you there, then, Kev. There was me thinking you did. :-) Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. Well I can't disagree with you on that last sentence. And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs. Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. The class c amplifier is non linear in detailed operation but the envelope of the output is still linearly related to the modulating input signal. Excellent! Now why didn't you just say that in the first place? There is simple too much information. One just assumes that people are using the same understanding for terms in a given context. e.g. saturation in one context means normal operating conditions, in another, it isn't. Indeed, in another it means the transistor got wet! Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution. I know, Kev. I read it years ago. That is to say, I read 80% or so of it before ripping it in half and tossing it out of the window of the train I was travelling on at the time, Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? much to the surprise of my fellow passengers. Rather annoyingly, I can't now recall what exactly Dawkins had said at that point that provoked such a reaction on my part. The only other book I ever tore up was the Count of Monte Cristo, two pages before the end. But that's by the by. Anyway, I went on to read Dawkins' magnum opus, the Blind Watchmaker in which he refined and to a great extent, retracted on his selfish gene theory. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. It's a magnificent book and probably the most important one anyone could ever read in their lives. I suggest you get a copy and study it carefully. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. While you're at it, get hold of Geoffrey Miller's the Mating Mind which is his brilliant refinement of the handicap principle in sexual selection - Darwin's 'other' theory. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I've read a great deal more about evolution than you might imagine, Kev. Once again you fail to recognise that others might actually know more about any given subject than you do. When this happens you end up looking really stoopid by virtue of your monumental pomposity and supercilliousness. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does things for the benefit of others. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. One must appreciate that Darwin did not know the specific mechanisms of evolution, and Dawkins, did not at first see the *general* bigger, picture of what genes were. The true "global" theory of "life" is not organisms, or genes or menes, its about Replicators. The Replicator is an *abstract* object from which general properties can be deduced about any object that satisfies the axioms of Replicators. The theory of replicators is correct by construction. I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of replicators. Axioms: [patronising lecture snipped] If you actually understood those axioms, its a cut and dried case. The axioms lead to some absolute conclusions. *Anything* satisfying those axioms *must* result in its conclusions. All one has to do is to show some particular object satisfies those axioms. Its like mathematical group theory. One you show something satisfies the group axioms, its a done deal. Look, given sets of Replicators, if any replicator is consistently better at replicating than another, given enough time, those particular Replicators *have* to dominate to the exclusion of all others. For example, a 1% advantage over 1000 generations, is 20,959. So if the populations of the replicators were initially equal, after 1000 generations, the ratio would be 20,959/1. If a particular replicator, happens to aid another replicator'ss replication, at the net expense of its own, it must, by simple mathematics, be completely overrun by the replicators it has aided. Thus true and absolute "selfishness" can not be sustained in a system of a group of Replicators. The theory also explains why people don't like to be thought of as selfish. Its abundantly clear that helping others, e.g in a group, is beneficial to the individual members own replication. For example, who has the best chance for avoiding a kick-in on the way home from the pub. A lone walker, or the gang of 5 skinheads. The obvious issue with being too selfish, is that if you don't reciprocate help, people wont give you help back, such that you cannot replicate as well as those that do cooperate together. Indeed, this is an example of a "handicap". A first order mathematical analysis would indicate that helping others would be detrimental, i.e. that paricular trait is a handicap, when in fact a detailed mathematical analysis can show that net benefits are achieved from that trait. Its the final probability of improved replication that matters. Fundamentally, we *all* *have* to be selfish at the root level. We are the result of the most successful Replicators, from millions and millions of years of evolution. It can't be any other way. Unfortunately, most can't like this simple fact, so deny it. Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. Blowing your own trumpet ain't going to get you anywhere, m8. When the likes of Win, Jim You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Sadly, none of us can be objective about ourselves. No. Some can, some can't. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. e.g. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html Who is tony? And, yes, it would be fair to say Win and Jim (Thompson) do indeed accept me as an individual with rather significant knowledge and experience. It would also be fair to say that I have corrected them at times, and supplied them with knowledge also unknown to them, as I have likewise gained a few bits and bobs from them. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Woops! Bit of a step back for you there, then, Kev. There was me thinking you did. :-) Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. Well I can't disagree with you on that last sentence. And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs. Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. The class c amplifier is non linear in detailed operation but the envelope of the output is still linearly related to the modulating input signal. Excellent! Now why didn't you just say that in the first place? There is simple too much information. One just assumes that people are using the same understanding for terms in a given context. e.g. saturation in one context means normal operating conditions, in another, it isn't. Indeed, in another it means the transistor got wet! Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote: Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature men remaining unmarried. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. Oh but he did. However, I'd agree that his departure from the original work was perhaps more subtle than you and most other mortals would appreciate. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. Well I can only conclude that you didn't understand it properly. The reviews of the book from the world's finest scientific minds testify to the monumental significance of this tome. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) I disagree. Certainly it the concept doesn't readily 'fall out' of Darwin's theory. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone (me) with indisputable expertise in the area. You're always opening salvos against people you don't know well enough to take on. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. He did. Miller expanded on this aspect, and Dawkins has formally endorsed Miller's work. Read the book. [another patronising lecture snipped] Read Miller's work, Kev! You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) Well you're obviously not stupid, but you do seem to have an unwarrantably high opinion of yourself. and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Obviously not. -- "I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote: Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature men remaining unmarried. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. Oh but he did. However, I'd agree that his departure from the original work was perhaps more subtle than you and most other mortals would appreciate. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. Well I can only conclude that you didn't understand it properly. The reviews of the book from the world's finest scientific minds testify to the monumental significance of this tome. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) I disagree. Certainly it the concept doesn't readily 'fall out' of Darwin's theory. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone (me) with indisputable expertise in the area. You're always opening salvos against people you don't know well enough to take on. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. He did. Miller expanded on this aspect, and Dawkins has formally endorsed Miller's work. Read the book. [another patronising lecture snipped] Read Miller's work, Kev! You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) Well you're obviously not stupid, but you do seem to have an unwarrantably high opinion of yourself. and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Obviously not. -- "I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Paul Burridge wrote: I have to say, though, that I've always found it very curious that radio hams refer to their bolt-on, high-power, aftermarket boosters as "linear amplifiers." You can't get any *less* linear than class C! ??? ....I won't speak for the rest of ham radio, but I've never operated a linear amplifier in Class C. Dick Reminds me of when I was in the Army in the late 60s. The colonel asked me (translates to ordered me) to fix a bunch of mobile 1KW linear amps belonging to the U. S. Mediterranean Mapping Mission. They used them on trucks and jeeps but they had about 10 of the non-functional and they were desperate. The units were Collins autotune push-pull linears and had the Collins trademark of motors gears and bicycle chains. This was familiar because I normally worked on 30KW Collins linears. The colonel, for his part, somehow choked up schematics and a parts list with FSNs. Word got out that I was doing this little job (small posts have an FTL rumor network I think). Suddenly hams on post decended on me for copies of the schematics and parts list. I had no idea how many hams there were on post. I'm sure it was about 5% of the total military personnel. I wonder still how many of them built the amplifiers (sans autotune). Chuck -- ... The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. ... Macbeth Chuck Simmons |
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; DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Now go and sin no more. -- Weav NW6E and other vices |
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; DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Now go and sin no more. -- Weav NW6E and other vices |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature men remaining unmarried. You've lost me here. Its a been a while since I read the selfish gene, but there is no way Dawkins would hold to such a silly idea. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. Oh but he did. Dose not compute. It make no rational sense at all. However, I'd agree that his departure from the original work was perhaps more subtle than you and most other mortals would appreciate. Must have been. However, as I said minor changes in position are not important, one cant get all the details right first time. I remember when I did not understand the details well enough to apply the theory to picking up women. A naive approach would be to do things for the women's direct interest, i.e. maybe the women could survive better, and pass on her genes better that way, i.e acting on the assumption that a women would chose if you were "nice" to her. Boy was I wrong. A women will do what ever maximises the number of her genes. This results in one main fact. She chooses a mate, essentially, only on the basis of good gene stock. She doesn't want a nice person because this would mean her offspring would also be nice, and thereby do things not in there own best interest. She wants a "mean" offspring. That is, treat them mean, keeps them keen The theories great. It explains quite nicely why women chose those yobbys that beat them up. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. Well I can only conclude that you didn't understand it properly. No, you conclude wrong. There was nothing, or little really new. So, "The Blind Watchmaker" by its very title tells you that it is explaining the details of how apparently consciously designed intricate objects, are not designed, but just a result of random process. This is a trivial deduction to the theory of replicators. In addition, it is well recognised that it was the selfish gene book that really made the **** hit the fan. I genuinely got bored with the book. The reviews of the book from the world's finest scientific minds testify to the monumental significance of this tome. I don't agree. Reviews mean f'all. Have you actually read all the "review" on the later editions of Hawking's "Brief history of time". It make you want to vomit. Sure, his a very clever dude, but he is ceratyinly not a god. As noted above, it was the selfish gene that revolutionised the approach to evolution as to the body being a mere vehicle for the masters, the genes and memes. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) I disagree. And you would be wrong. Certainly it the concept doesn't readily 'fall out' of Darwin's theory. Not relevant. Dawins theory has been completely superseded by a more general view, where it all just drops out in the wash. After the fact, it was the wrong way to approach the problem. Its unfortunate that many have not realised this. For example: All of the content of Einstein's first and major paper on the theory of special relativity "The Electrodynamics of Moving bodies" was already known. It is why the fundamental equations are called the "Lorentz Equations". The issue here was that they were derived based on an intricate detailed knowledge of the *specifics* of EM theory. What Einstein was the first to show was that all the details could be thrown away as being just a trivial *conclusion* from the basic concepts he identified. That is, all of physics is independent of uniform motion, and his new axiom, the speed of light is an invariant. No one today approaches SR from direction of its original discovery. Its simple irrelevant. The whole emphases on Darwin is wrong, it is a legacy theory. The fundamental idea is the Replicator, as such, a "handicap" is just a specific detail of how some particular Replicators can replicate better. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone (me) with indisputable expertise in the area. Nonsense. It was just something that I could not be bothered to debate. I have little interest in economics, other than how much I get paid, which concerns me greatly. You're always opening salvos against people you don't know well enough to take on. Ahmmm.. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. He did. Miller expanded on this aspect, and Dawkins has formally endorsed Miller's work. Read the book. If your claiming that Dawkins retracted the basics of Replicators, then your dreaming. I'll have to see what Miller is specifically addressing. I have read a few bits and bobs from creationists who claim that Dawkins recanted on his evolutionary views. It was all crap, as he himself explained. [another patronising lecture snipped] Well, obviously, you could not refute my argument that selfishness is inherent. As I said, its a tautology. It can't be contradicted. Do genes and memes replicate traits? Are traits continually being generated? Are traits selected from? End of story. Read Miller's work, Kev! You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) Well you're obviously not stupid, but you do seem to have an unwarrantably high opinion of yourself. Nope. I have a warranted high opinion of myself. I know what my limits are pretty well. I have never attempted to ski through revolving doors backward, blindfolded. and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Obviously not. Indeed. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature men remaining unmarried. You've lost me here. Its a been a while since I read the selfish gene, but there is no way Dawkins would hold to such a silly idea. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot be wrong. Oh but he did. Dose not compute. It make no rational sense at all. However, I'd agree that his departure from the original work was perhaps more subtle than you and most other mortals would appreciate. Must have been. However, as I said minor changes in position are not important, one cant get all the details right first time. I remember when I did not understand the details well enough to apply the theory to picking up women. A naive approach would be to do things for the women's direct interest, i.e. maybe the women could survive better, and pass on her genes better that way, i.e acting on the assumption that a women would chose if you were "nice" to her. Boy was I wrong. A women will do what ever maximises the number of her genes. This results in one main fact. She chooses a mate, essentially, only on the basis of good gene stock. She doesn't want a nice person because this would mean her offspring would also be nice, and thereby do things not in there own best interest. She wants a "mean" offspring. That is, treat them mean, keeps them keen The theories great. It explains quite nicely why women chose those yobbys that beat them up. Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words above to "the selfish gene" itself. Well I can only conclude that you didn't understand it properly. No, you conclude wrong. There was nothing, or little really new. So, "The Blind Watchmaker" by its very title tells you that it is explaining the details of how apparently consciously designed intricate objects, are not designed, but just a result of random process. This is a trivial deduction to the theory of replicators. In addition, it is well recognised that it was the selfish gene book that really made the **** hit the fan. I genuinely got bored with the book. The reviews of the book from the world's finest scientific minds testify to the monumental significance of this tome. I don't agree. Reviews mean f'all. Have you actually read all the "review" on the later editions of Hawking's "Brief history of time". It make you want to vomit. Sure, his a very clever dude, but he is ceratyinly not a god. As noted above, it was the selfish gene that revolutionised the approach to evolution as to the body being a mere vehicle for the masters, the genes and memes. The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below) I disagree. And you would be wrong. Certainly it the concept doesn't readily 'fall out' of Darwin's theory. Not relevant. Dawins theory has been completely superseded by a more general view, where it all just drops out in the wash. After the fact, it was the wrong way to approach the problem. Its unfortunate that many have not realised this. For example: All of the content of Einstein's first and major paper on the theory of special relativity "The Electrodynamics of Moving bodies" was already known. It is why the fundamental equations are called the "Lorentz Equations". The issue here was that they were derived based on an intricate detailed knowledge of the *specifics* of EM theory. What Einstein was the first to show was that all the details could be thrown away as being just a trivial *conclusion* from the basic concepts he identified. That is, all of physics is independent of uniform motion, and his new axiom, the speed of light is an invariant. No one today approaches SR from direction of its original discovery. Its simple irrelevant. The whole emphases on Darwin is wrong, it is a legacy theory. The fundamental idea is the Replicator, as such, a "handicap" is just a specific detail of how some particular Replicators can replicate better. I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see below) I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all issues. Only things I really know about. Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone (me) with indisputable expertise in the area. Nonsense. It was just something that I could not be bothered to debate. I have little interest in economics, other than how much I get paid, which concerns me greatly. You're always opening salvos against people you don't know well enough to take on. Ahmmm.. No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM. This is nonsense. He didn't. He did. Miller expanded on this aspect, and Dawkins has formally endorsed Miller's work. Read the book. If your claiming that Dawkins retracted the basics of Replicators, then your dreaming. I'll have to see what Miller is specifically addressing. I have read a few bits and bobs from creationists who claim that Dawkins recanted on his evolutionary views. It was all crap, as he himself explained. [another patronising lecture snipped] Well, obviously, you could not refute my argument that selfishness is inherent. As I said, its a tautology. It can't be contradicted. Do genes and memes replicate traits? Are traits continually being generated? Are traits selected from? End of story. Read Miller's work, Kev! You obviously have not read many of my posts:-) Well you're obviously not stupid, but you do seem to have an unwarrantably high opinion of yourself. Nope. I have a warranted high opinion of myself. I know what my limits are pretty well. I have never attempted to ski through revolving doors backward, blindfolded. and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll happily accept it. Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities. Obviously not. Indeed. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Kevin Aylward wrote...
Winfield Hill wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote... With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and with all due respect to Winfred... Who's Winfred? :) Thanks, - Win Obvious I don't respect you enough to remember your name:-) But then, who's Win in your comment? Just checking. :) Thanks, - Win |
Kevin Aylward wrote...
Winfield Hill wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote... With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and with all due respect to Winfred... Who's Winfred? :) Thanks, - Win Obvious I don't respect you enough to remember your name:-) But then, who's Win in your comment? Just checking. :) Thanks, - Win |
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 |
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 |
"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. DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Now go and sin no more. I've met folks before who think that linearity means freqs cumzoutas must only equal freqs gozintas. But they don't usually put up such a fuss when actually presented with the widely available and consistant literature or reasonable arguments. This is more about fuss than facts. Now that is consistant with the usenet. |
"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. DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Now go and sin no more. I've met folks before who think that linearity means freqs cumzoutas must only equal freqs gozintas. But they don't usually put up such a fuss when actually presented with the widely available and consistant literature or reasonable arguments. This is more about fuss than facts. Now that is consistant with the usenet. |
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote in message ...
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; DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Now go and sin no more. Eric, The really efficient dsp / digital algorithms come about with time-varying processes. Another good bit of science is the use of recursive filters to produce a finite impulse response ... That's one nice way to squeeze a lot of functionality in a medium-sized IC / FPGA / ASIC ... or whatever. Radio receiver (demodulation) and bandpass algorithm / code get a lot smaller. Frank Raffaeli http://www.aomwireless.com/ |
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote in message ...
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; DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Now go and sin no more. Eric, The really efficient dsp / digital algorithms come about with time-varying processes. Another good bit of science is the use of recursive filters to produce a finite impulse response ... That's one nice way to squeeze a lot of functionality in a medium-sized IC / FPGA / ASIC ... or whatever. Radio receiver (demodulation) and bandpass algorithm / code get a lot smaller. Frank Raffaeli http://www.aomwireless.com/ |
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...
[snipped much voluminous banter] Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. [snipped more banter] Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly matched? The surname of this forum is *design*. I, for one, would prefer to see this hypothesis tested by deeds rather than by words. On this forum, I don't care if its spelled analogue or analog - just make it work and explain why. IMO, no one here needs to prove anything; however, it would certaily be interesting to watch such a *contest* if it were all in good fun and sport. Best Regards, Frank Raffaeli http://www.aomwireless.com/ |
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...
[snipped much voluminous banter] Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. [snipped more banter] Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly matched? The surname of this forum is *design*. I, for one, would prefer to see this hypothesis tested by deeds rather than by words. On this forum, I don't care if its spelled analogue or analog - just make it work and explain why. IMO, no one here needs to prove anything; however, it would certaily be interesting to watch such a *contest* if it were all in good fun and sport. Best Regards, Frank Raffaeli http://www.aomwireless.com/ |
Terry Given 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 [snip] 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. herewith a self-confessed doesnt-know-it-all's analysis: IF y(x) = mx+c (even KA cant argue with the linearity (and time-invariance) of this....LOL) THEN y(ax) = max+c AND ay(x) = max+ac Look, you picking up on a triviality that was thrown in as a side line and as as immediate response to a justification of my claims. My claims stand as correct. I clearly stated what was I consider an appropriate definition of linearity, i.e. no frequencies present in the output, not present at the input. Elementary Sesame-Street Theory (one of these things is not like the other) clearly shows this "definition" of linearity to be rubbish. This was, to all intents and purposes, a typo. I was meaning to refer to a simple constant gain transfer function. Is it really credible, given that you are obviously aware of my GR papers, that I am to stupid to know standard definition of linearity. However, it would seem that you are another one of those sad people who think y=x^2 is a linear equation between x and y. gwhite most certainly has it correct. KA does not. Dream on. This is bloody absurd. www.google.com "nonlinear differential equations" 22,000 hits. You need to get to grips with than fact that the term "linear" is being used with two different meanings, where *both* meanings are perfectly valid in their own contexts. Look, I know what gwite white means, its trivial. It is also trivial to understand that it is not applicable to analogue design of amplifies. Next you'll be declaring that "homogeneous" only, means the one specific definition as used in differential equations. Or how about "canonical" as a slight aside, I have read H&H about 8 times, and will continue to do so - it is one of the more useful books on electronics I have ever bought (and I have about 600 of them). If you do not have that book - GO AND BUY IT!! I even met WINFIELD Hill at an MIT junkfest once a few years ago, and had an interesting discussion with him about my work on high-speed PMSM energy storage flywheels and giant SMPS. That guy is really smart - I suggest anyone reading this forum should pay close attention to win's postings (i sure do). As far as being an "academic" - well, go read H&H - its beauty lies in its practicality, unlike most texts. Just because someone works in academia, doesnt mean they are useless (although to be fair, its usually not a bad first guess). I hope you not suggesting that I have any negative opinions of Win because I claimed that I was not an academic. Likewise I have met plenty of blithering idiots out doing "real" engineering (its a good thing - competent people end up being well paid to fix their screw-ups). The worst ones tend to work in sales (I presume its because they cant get real jobs) Really this entire thread has done little more than allow Kevin Aylward to appear like a pompous idiot, with a somewhat limited understanding. A BSc and half-a-dozen MSc courses (one A - wow. I remember those - they are what you get if you dont do well enough for an A+) simply makes for a failed MSc. Of all the pomposities, I just loved this one: No this one is about gwhite being a pretentious prat trying to impress everyone with a fancy mathematical definition of linearity that has little or zero relevance in this context, i.e analogue design of amplifiers. He has *yet* to show how said class A amplifier, as he claimed, can form a modulator without relying on the fact that the transfer function of the transistor is non-linear. He has simple attempted to obscure the issues by making irrelevant technical points. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. It kind of makes one wonder just how KA knows there isnt much he doesnt know. why do I post on these newsboards? am I being selfish? I dont think so. Not consciously, but inherently, there is no other way, that is not if you believe in evolution, i.e if you are one of those creationists. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Terry Given 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 [snip] 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. herewith a self-confessed doesnt-know-it-all's analysis: IF y(x) = mx+c (even KA cant argue with the linearity (and time-invariance) of this....LOL) THEN y(ax) = max+c AND ay(x) = max+ac Look, you picking up on a triviality that was thrown in as a side line and as as immediate response to a justification of my claims. My claims stand as correct. I clearly stated what was I consider an appropriate definition of linearity, i.e. no frequencies present in the output, not present at the input. Elementary Sesame-Street Theory (one of these things is not like the other) clearly shows this "definition" of linearity to be rubbish. This was, to all intents and purposes, a typo. I was meaning to refer to a simple constant gain transfer function. Is it really credible, given that you are obviously aware of my GR papers, that I am to stupid to know standard definition of linearity. However, it would seem that you are another one of those sad people who think y=x^2 is a linear equation between x and y. gwhite most certainly has it correct. KA does not. Dream on. This is bloody absurd. www.google.com "nonlinear differential equations" 22,000 hits. You need to get to grips with than fact that the term "linear" is being used with two different meanings, where *both* meanings are perfectly valid in their own contexts. Look, I know what gwite white means, its trivial. It is also trivial to understand that it is not applicable to analogue design of amplifies. Next you'll be declaring that "homogeneous" only, means the one specific definition as used in differential equations. Or how about "canonical" as a slight aside, I have read H&H about 8 times, and will continue to do so - it is one of the more useful books on electronics I have ever bought (and I have about 600 of them). If you do not have that book - GO AND BUY IT!! I even met WINFIELD Hill at an MIT junkfest once a few years ago, and had an interesting discussion with him about my work on high-speed PMSM energy storage flywheels and giant SMPS. That guy is really smart - I suggest anyone reading this forum should pay close attention to win's postings (i sure do). As far as being an "academic" - well, go read H&H - its beauty lies in its practicality, unlike most texts. Just because someone works in academia, doesnt mean they are useless (although to be fair, its usually not a bad first guess). I hope you not suggesting that I have any negative opinions of Win because I claimed that I was not an academic. Likewise I have met plenty of blithering idiots out doing "real" engineering (its a good thing - competent people end up being well paid to fix their screw-ups). The worst ones tend to work in sales (I presume its because they cant get real jobs) Really this entire thread has done little more than allow Kevin Aylward to appear like a pompous idiot, with a somewhat limited understanding. A BSc and half-a-dozen MSc courses (one A - wow. I remember those - they are what you get if you dont do well enough for an A+) simply makes for a failed MSc. Of all the pomposities, I just loved this one: No this one is about gwhite being a pretentious prat trying to impress everyone with a fancy mathematical definition of linearity that has little or zero relevance in this context, i.e analogue design of amplifiers. He has *yet* to show how said class A amplifier, as he claimed, can form a modulator without relying on the fact that the transfer function of the transistor is non-linear. He has simple attempted to obscure the issues by making irrelevant technical points. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. It kind of makes one wonder just how KA knows there isnt much he doesnt know. why do I post on these newsboards? am I being selfish? I dont think so. Not consciously, but inherently, there is no other way, that is not if you believe in evolution, i.e if you are one of those creationists. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
gwhite wrote:
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. No right 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." Oh dear..oh dear...You claimed that the class A amp was a modulator an achieved this modulation by way of linear means, you fail to present your proof of this claim, and then spout of with mathematical waffle, and claim that I am being obscure? I clearly showed how the class A amp achieved modulation based on the non-linear relation of emitter current verses base emitter voltage. The fact that you have failed to give an alternative mathematically proof indicates quite clearly that you ****ing in the wind. Present you argument of exactly how your claim is correct, or retract you claim. 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. Absolute crap. Show me one respectable math reference that says if y=exp(x), that y is a linear function of x. You were right about one thing: this matter of linearity is pretty basic. Indeed it is. You missed it; you are wrong, that is no big deal. Indeed its not. My SuperSpice works quite nicely based on the well known theory of the solution of non-linear differential equations. 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; Show me one real practical example that does not use a device with a functional relation between input and output voltage/current that is linear, as I defined above. As did note as an after thought, it may be possible in principle, for example, maybe one could construct a true, linear with voltage, voltage controlled resistor. However, I am not aware of such magic devices. The physical reality is that it is not possible. Produce one and I will retract my claim. 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. No. Linearity is widely understood to have many definitions. I have explained some of these already. It is that simple. Nope. Its not. Linearity has many definitions. In the context of analogue design, linearity is defined based on where the is a non straight line between input and output. The whole subject of non-linear differential equations in spice is based on this concept. I gave you an example and worked the solution for you, but still you resist. Look, I have no problem with your example of a particular definition of linearity. I already explained how such an example is meaningless in analogue design by giving an example. A mathematical definition only has meaning if it is useful when it is applied. In analogue design this definition is useless, so it is not used. 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. I don't care a toss about and communication texts. I care about linearity as understood in the solution of the non-linear differential equations used in Spice. I suggest that you read some of the many papers on the solution of such equations. Look, I don't claim that the particular definition of linearity that you presence is "wrong" in principle. It is a very well known definition. However, it is one of many, and is simple not applicable in this context. Your "definition" is not in any of them (af(t) = f(at)???). I did not say that this was a definition. This was just thrown in as side line, and I said as much. This was, to all intents and purposes, a typo. I was meaning to refer to a simple constant gain transfer function. I clearly said that linearity, as defined in analogue design, is essentially defined by the absence of any frequencies in the output not present in the input. So I feel justified in simply saying you are flatly wrong. No. You is you. You have singularly failed to show how your class a amp is a modulator without using a non-linear relation between input voltage/current to output voltage/current. If you claim that y=exp(x) is a linear relation between x an y, further debate is pointless. You don't the first thing about math. 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. www.google.com "nonlinear equations" www.google.com "nonlinear differential equations" 22,000 hits. You problem is that you are trying to argue a different point and simple don't see it. You were off on a roll trying to impress people which mathematical technicalities that are simple irrelevant in the context of this original discussion. In short, you are a smart arse. 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 I know all about your definition. I dont disagree that it is a valid definition in some contexts. However, it is not applicable to electronic circuit design that is based on the solution of non-linear differential equations, with the "non-linear" term having a universally accepted meaning by the 10,000s of mathematician who actually study such equations. (it was a couple definitions and an application using a couple simple trig identities and no more really). So basic that you can stand there and declare that: Y=x^2 is a linear equation. Yeah...LOL. get real. The meat: You arnt wrong in this thread because of you particular claim of linearity. You are wrong because the fundamental claim that you made was that your class A amp was a modulator that did not rely on the non-linear transfer function of the emitter current verses Vbe. You have absolutely failed to explain any exact *details* to support your claim. That is, show me a specific analysis of the amplifier, without the irrelevant mathematical waffle, that shows that: Vo = V(t)(1+ a.sin(wt)) I will accept the argument that you simply misunderstood my, very common definition of linearity, i.e. y=x^2 is a non-linear equation relation x to y in *any* mathematical book you care to name, with a linearity definition more appropriate to general systems analysis. In closing: The real reason for this disagreement is that you are talking apples and I am talking fish net stockings. You are applying the term linearity in a completely different sense than the one I am using. Both are valid in principle, and are indeed well accepted, under their appropriate conditions. The issue however, is that I have made an effort to actually explain in other posts, what the distinction is, but you are simple too closed minded or too stupid to understand. In this particular case, modulation is, in practise, universally achieved by a non-linear transfer function. That is y=f(x) is non-linear as defined in any math text book you care to name. Its simple not debatable. However, applying signals to such a transfer function, can result in the condition, that given that a certain output is required, non-linearly related to the input in the strict sense, this output is linearly related to the input signals. That is, if a certain input gives an output, the sum of two inputs, give the same output as the individual output sums. In this sense it may be said to be linear. That is the wanted summed output is the wanted output of the individual inputs. In one case the term linearity is being applied to the fact that the output is not a direct linear function of the input, in the other case, the term linearity is being applied to the fact the wanted output is is a linear function of the input sums. That is, in one case, the term linearity is being applied to the specifics of a system part, where as in the second case linearity is being applied to a system wide property. What seems to defies rational belief, is that you seem totally oblivious to the fact that the term linearity is being applied to two completely different aspects of a system, and cant be directly compared as to which one is more valid then another. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
gwhite wrote:
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. No right 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." Oh dear..oh dear...You claimed that the class A amp was a modulator an achieved this modulation by way of linear means, you fail to present your proof of this claim, and then spout of with mathematical waffle, and claim that I am being obscure? I clearly showed how the class A amp achieved modulation based on the non-linear relation of emitter current verses base emitter voltage. The fact that you have failed to give an alternative mathematically proof indicates quite clearly that you ****ing in the wind. Present you argument of exactly how your claim is correct, or retract you claim. 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. Absolute crap. Show me one respectable math reference that says if y=exp(x), that y is a linear function of x. You were right about one thing: this matter of linearity is pretty basic. Indeed it is. You missed it; you are wrong, that is no big deal. Indeed its not. My SuperSpice works quite nicely based on the well known theory of the solution of non-linear differential equations. 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; Show me one real practical example that does not use a device with a functional relation between input and output voltage/current that is linear, as I defined above. As did note as an after thought, it may be possible in principle, for example, maybe one could construct a true, linear with voltage, voltage controlled resistor. However, I am not aware of such magic devices. The physical reality is that it is not possible. Produce one and I will retract my claim. 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. No. Linearity is widely understood to have many definitions. I have explained some of these already. It is that simple. Nope. Its not. Linearity has many definitions. In the context of analogue design, linearity is defined based on where the is a non straight line between input and output. The whole subject of non-linear differential equations in spice is based on this concept. I gave you an example and worked the solution for you, but still you resist. Look, I have no problem with your example of a particular definition of linearity. I already explained how such an example is meaningless in analogue design by giving an example. A mathematical definition only has meaning if it is useful when it is applied. In analogue design this definition is useless, so it is not used. 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. I don't care a toss about and communication texts. I care about linearity as understood in the solution of the non-linear differential equations used in Spice. I suggest that you read some of the many papers on the solution of such equations. Look, I don't claim that the particular definition of linearity that you presence is "wrong" in principle. It is a very well known definition. However, it is one of many, and is simple not applicable in this context. Your "definition" is not in any of them (af(t) = f(at)???). I did not say that this was a definition. This was just thrown in as side line, and I said as much. This was, to all intents and purposes, a typo. I was meaning to refer to a simple constant gain transfer function. I clearly said that linearity, as defined in analogue design, is essentially defined by the absence of any frequencies in the output not present in the input. So I feel justified in simply saying you are flatly wrong. No. You is you. You have singularly failed to show how your class a amp is a modulator without using a non-linear relation between input voltage/current to output voltage/current. If you claim that y=exp(x) is a linear relation between x an y, further debate is pointless. You don't the first thing about math. 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. www.google.com "nonlinear equations" www.google.com "nonlinear differential equations" 22,000 hits. You problem is that you are trying to argue a different point and simple don't see it. You were off on a roll trying to impress people which mathematical technicalities that are simple irrelevant in the context of this original discussion. In short, you are a smart arse. 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 I know all about your definition. I dont disagree that it is a valid definition in some contexts. However, it is not applicable to electronic circuit design that is based on the solution of non-linear differential equations, with the "non-linear" term having a universally accepted meaning by the 10,000s of mathematician who actually study such equations. (it was a couple definitions and an application using a couple simple trig identities and no more really). So basic that you can stand there and declare that: Y=x^2 is a linear equation. Yeah...LOL. get real. The meat: You arnt wrong in this thread because of you particular claim of linearity. You are wrong because the fundamental claim that you made was that your class A amp was a modulator that did not rely on the non-linear transfer function of the emitter current verses Vbe. You have absolutely failed to explain any exact *details* to support your claim. That is, show me a specific analysis of the amplifier, without the irrelevant mathematical waffle, that shows that: Vo = V(t)(1+ a.sin(wt)) I will accept the argument that you simply misunderstood my, very common definition of linearity, i.e. y=x^2 is a non-linear equation relation x to y in *any* mathematical book you care to name, with a linearity definition more appropriate to general systems analysis. In closing: The real reason for this disagreement is that you are talking apples and I am talking fish net stockings. You are applying the term linearity in a completely different sense than the one I am using. Both are valid in principle, and are indeed well accepted, under their appropriate conditions. The issue however, is that I have made an effort to actually explain in other posts, what the distinction is, but you are simple too closed minded or too stupid to understand. In this particular case, modulation is, in practise, universally achieved by a non-linear transfer function. That is y=f(x) is non-linear as defined in any math text book you care to name. Its simple not debatable. However, applying signals to such a transfer function, can result in the condition, that given that a certain output is required, non-linearly related to the input in the strict sense, this output is linearly related to the input signals. That is, if a certain input gives an output, the sum of two inputs, give the same output as the individual output sums. In this sense it may be said to be linear. That is the wanted summed output is the wanted output of the individual inputs. In one case the term linearity is being applied to the fact that the output is not a direct linear function of the input, in the other case, the term linearity is being applied to the fact the wanted output is is a linear function of the input sums. That is, in one case, the term linearity is being applied to the specifics of a system part, where as in the second case linearity is being applied to a system wide property. What seems to defies rational belief, is that you seem totally oblivious to the fact that the term linearity is being applied to two completely different aspects of a system, and cant be directly compared as to which one is more valid then another. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
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. Its that simple. I clearly stated that it was *not* a definition. 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. DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Absolute crap. 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. Now go and sin no more. I've met folks before who think that linearity means freqs cumzoutas must only equal freqs gozintas. But they don't usually put up such a fuss when actually presented with the widely available and consistant literature or reasonable arguments. This is more about fuss than facts. Indeed. So why *are* you putting up such a fuss about notions that are widely held in the literature. Show me one, and I mean just one, that declares y=x^2 a linear equation. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
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. Its that simple. I clearly stated that it was *not* a definition. 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. DSP people have to see it stated explicitly (as "LTI": Linear Time Invariant) lest they think "linear" just means having no second-or-higher-order terms. It is not a deficiency on either party's part, just a difference of definition in each's respective discipline (is that enough alliteration?). Therefore, I advise each to bend this much: Use the full phrase "Linear Time-Invariant" when this miscommunication is suspected, so both know what the hell the other is talking about. Absolute crap. 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. Now go and sin no more. I've met folks before who think that linearity means freqs cumzoutas must only equal freqs gozintas. But they don't usually put up such a fuss when actually presented with the widely available and consistant literature or reasonable arguments. This is more about fuss than facts. Indeed. So why *are* you putting up such a fuss about notions that are widely held in the literature. Show me one, and I mean just one, that declares y=x^2 a linear equation. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Frank Raffaeli wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... [snipped much voluminous banter] Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. [snipped more banter] Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly matched? I don't know. How tall is he, I'm only 5'8" Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Frank Raffaeli wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... [snipped much voluminous banter] Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may well know different things. [snipped more banter] Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly matched? I don't know. How tall is he, I'm only 5'8" Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Terry Given wrote: herewith a self-confessed doesnt-know-it-all's analysis: IF y(x) = mx+c (even KA cant argue with the linearity (and time-invariance) of this....LOL) THEN y(ax) = max+c AND ay(x) = max+ac The more I look at this, the more I realise that I am over the heads of you guys. I am making standard assumptions, and because some individuals are simple not conversant with common knowledge in the field, make what are, basically Jesus wept statements. For starters, there is obviously confusion here on sufficiency and necessesity. If a function satisfies a(f(x)) = f(ax) is it guaranteed to be linear? Now, we are discussing practical modulators/amplifiers. Do we care about dc offsets? For those knowledgeable in the field, do we usually need to actually specify that dc offsets are being ignored in normal explanations? for instance, do we usually use a capacitor to eliminate them? I must apologise for this. I need to be more aware that many are not aware of common assumptions, that are taken as read, by those individuals, who, for example, have been doing analogue design, for example, for 20+ years. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Terry Given wrote: herewith a self-confessed doesnt-know-it-all's analysis: IF y(x) = mx+c (even KA cant argue with the linearity (and time-invariance) of this....LOL) THEN y(ax) = max+c AND ay(x) = max+ac The more I look at this, the more I realise that I am over the heads of you guys. I am making standard assumptions, and because some individuals are simple not conversant with common knowledge in the field, make what are, basically Jesus wept statements. For starters, there is obviously confusion here on sufficiency and necessesity. If a function satisfies a(f(x)) = f(ax) is it guaranteed to be linear? Now, we are discussing practical modulators/amplifiers. Do we care about dc offsets? For those knowledgeable in the field, do we usually need to actually specify that dc offsets are being ignored in normal explanations? for instance, do we usually use a capacitor to eliminate them? I must apologise for this. I need to be more aware that many are not aware of common assumptions, that are taken as read, by those individuals, who, for example, have been doing analogue design, for example, for 20+ years. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
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. |
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. |
Kevin Aylward wrote: It is that simple. Nope. Its not. Linearity has many definitions. It doesn't have "many definitions" when it comes to the EE profession. The one definition is wholly consistant across academic texts -- without known contradiction. Everyone who took courses like Circuits, Fields and Waves, and on and on, also took a Signals and Systems (or similar under a different name) course. That some, such as you for example, didn't learn or understand the definition is notwithstanding. Look, I have no problem with your example of a particular definition of linearity. I already explained how such an example is meaningless in analogue design by giving an example. A mathematical definition only has meaning if it is useful when it is applied. In analogue design this definition is useless, so it is not used. It is useful to the extent modulation is a linear operation produced by devices such as gilbert cells biased to Class-A. It is very useful definition: for example, high data rate modern digital communications systems routinely utilize linear modulation/demodulation. It doesn't even matter if the upper transistors in the gilbert cells are driven to the switch mode (switch mode is not a requirement; class-A will do) by the LO. It is still linear modulation. This system is linear: The System +---------------+ | | in | /¯¯¯\ | out x(t) O--------( X )---------O y(t) | \___/ | | | | | | | | O | | cos(w_c·t) | +---------------+ This one is not: The System +---------------------+ | | in | /¯¯¯\ /¯¯¯\ | out x(t) O--------( X )--( + )-------O y(t) | \___/ \___/ | | | | | | +--------+ | | | | | O | | cos(w_c·t) | +---------------------+ Do you know why? Hint: it has nothing to do with any "exp(x)" or other solid state issues. 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. I don't care a toss about and communication texts. Sheesh -- no ****! I care about linearity as understood in the solution of the non-linear differential equations used in Spice. Like I said early on: you can make the answer come out however you want if you are permitted to make up the rules and change them as you play. Look, I don't claim that the particular definition of linearity that you presence is "wrong" in principle. It is a very well known definition. However, it is one of many, and is simple not applicable in this context. It is the definition for the EE profession. I clearly said that linearity, as defined in analogue design, is essentially defined by the absence of any frequencies in the output not present in the input. That "definition" is incorrect, as has been pointed out already. You were off on a roll trying to impress people which mathematical technicalities that are simple irrelevant in the context of this original discussion. Right. I was trying to "impress" by using a couple of trig identities. LOL I know all about your definition. I dont disagree that it is a valid definition in some contexts. It is the definition for the EE context. If you want an LTI system, then so be it. However, it is not applicable to electronic circuit design that is based on the solution of non-linear differential equations, with the "non-linear" term having a universally accepted meaning by the 10,000s of mathematician who actually study such equations. It is not a matter of a mathematician's characterization of equations. It is the EE characterization, and this is largely an EE forum. If you are a mathematician and not an EE, then I can see why you would believe what you do. You arnt wrong in this thread because of you particular claim of linearity. It isn't "my claim." It is the standard definition for EE's. That some EE's didn't quite "get it" is notwithstanding. The real reason for this disagreement is that you are talking apples and I am talking fish net stockings. You are applying the term linearity in a completely different sense than the one I am using. Both are valid in principle, and are indeed well accepted, under their appropriate conditions. Your definition is not the EE definition. That is y=f(x) is non-linear as defined in any math text book you care to name. This is a matter of EE definition. Recall how you sniped about the EE courses I apparently didn't take "with all due respect." "A linear system, cannot produce frequencies that are not in the input, essentially, by definition. With all due respect, I would guess you don't have an EE B.S. degree. This is all pretty basic stuff really." -- Kevin Aylward So you originally sniped about my education in electrical engineering, and then ignore those very same basics taught in all EE curriculums, and then turn course and take refuge in a math text. Okay, Kevin, have it your way. |
Kevin Aylward wrote: It is that simple. Nope. Its not. Linearity has many definitions. It doesn't have "many definitions" when it comes to the EE profession. The one definition is wholly consistant across academic texts -- without known contradiction. Everyone who took courses like Circuits, Fields and Waves, and on and on, also took a Signals and Systems (or similar under a different name) course. That some, such as you for example, didn't learn or understand the definition is notwithstanding. Look, I have no problem with your example of a particular definition of linearity. I already explained how such an example is meaningless in analogue design by giving an example. A mathematical definition only has meaning if it is useful when it is applied. In analogue design this definition is useless, so it is not used. It is useful to the extent modulation is a linear operation produced by devices such as gilbert cells biased to Class-A. It is very useful definition: for example, high data rate modern digital communications systems routinely utilize linear modulation/demodulation. It doesn't even matter if the upper transistors in the gilbert cells are driven to the switch mode (switch mode is not a requirement; class-A will do) by the LO. It is still linear modulation. This system is linear: The System +---------------+ | | in | /¯¯¯\ | out x(t) O--------( X )---------O y(t) | \___/ | | | | | | | | O | | cos(w_c·t) | +---------------+ This one is not: The System +---------------------+ | | in | /¯¯¯\ /¯¯¯\ | out x(t) O--------( X )--( + )-------O y(t) | \___/ \___/ | | | | | | +--------+ | | | | | O | | cos(w_c·t) | +---------------------+ Do you know why? Hint: it has nothing to do with any "exp(x)" or other solid state issues. 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. I don't care a toss about and communication texts. Sheesh -- no ****! I care about linearity as understood in the solution of the non-linear differential equations used in Spice. Like I said early on: you can make the answer come out however you want if you are permitted to make up the rules and change them as you play. Look, I don't claim that the particular definition of linearity that you presence is "wrong" in principle. It is a very well known definition. However, it is one of many, and is simple not applicable in this context. It is the definition for the EE profession. I clearly said that linearity, as defined in analogue design, is essentially defined by the absence of any frequencies in the output not present in the input. That "definition" is incorrect, as has been pointed out already. You were off on a roll trying to impress people which mathematical technicalities that are simple irrelevant in the context of this original discussion. Right. I was trying to "impress" by using a couple of trig identities. LOL I know all about your definition. I dont disagree that it is a valid definition in some contexts. It is the definition for the EE context. If you want an LTI system, then so be it. However, it is not applicable to electronic circuit design that is based on the solution of non-linear differential equations, with the "non-linear" term having a universally accepted meaning by the 10,000s of mathematician who actually study such equations. It is not a matter of a mathematician's characterization of equations. It is the EE characterization, and this is largely an EE forum. If you are a mathematician and not an EE, then I can see why you would believe what you do. You arnt wrong in this thread because of you particular claim of linearity. It isn't "my claim." It is the standard definition for EE's. That some EE's didn't quite "get it" is notwithstanding. The real reason for this disagreement is that you are talking apples and I am talking fish net stockings. You are applying the term linearity in a completely different sense than the one I am using. Both are valid in principle, and are indeed well accepted, under their appropriate conditions. Your definition is not the EE definition. That is y=f(x) is non-linear as defined in any math text book you care to name. This is a matter of EE definition. Recall how you sniped about the EE courses I apparently didn't take "with all due respect." "A linear system, cannot produce frequencies that are not in the input, essentially, by definition. With all due respect, I would guess you don't have an EE B.S. degree. This is all pretty basic stuff really." -- Kevin Aylward So you originally sniped about my education in electrical engineering, and then ignore those very same basics taught in all EE curriculums, and then turn course and take refuge in a math text. Okay, Kevin, have it your way. |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:52:46 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote: Paul Burridge wrote: On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature men remaining unmarried. You've lost me here. Its a been a while since I read the selfish gene, but there is no way Dawkins would hold to such a silly idea. I'm not suggesting he held *this* particular loony idea. The example from Tressel was only that; an example. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original Must have been. However, as I said minor changes in position are not important, one cant get all the details right first time. Indeed. Hence the re-think between the books. They were what? 10 years apart? People move on and refine their ideas. You should read Wittgenstein to see how far a man can change his outlook over the course of his life! I remember when I did not understand the details well enough to apply the theory to picking up women. A naive approach would be to do things for the women's direct interest, i.e. maybe the women could survive better, and pass on her genes better that way, i.e acting on the assumption that a women would chose if you were "nice" to her. Boy was I wrong. A women will do what ever maximises the number of her genes. I think you've phrased that rather poorly but I believe I know what you mean. This results in one main fact. She chooses a mate, essentially, only on the basis of good gene stock. She doesn't want a nice person because this would mean her offspring would also be nice, and thereby do things not in there own best interest. She wants a "mean" offspring. That is, treat them mean, keeps them keen The theories great. It explains quite nicely why women chose those yobbys that beat them up. Can't agree there. Women are basically genetically obliged to pick the best mate they can get their hands on, given the limitations imposed by their own pulling abilities. What they are looking for in every case is a mate who can give their offspring the best chance of survival and 'thrival' in this wide, mean world. Interestingly enough, the qualities the male must display to succeed change according to different ages (historical ages, not biological) and cultures. At varying times, men have been favoured because of, for example, they're exceptionally good fighters. Or unusually good hunters... later in history, we see female preferences based on wealth and status. But in countries where for idealogical reasons, all people are 'made to be equal' like the old Soviet Union or the 'old' China, females must pick according to other criteria such as a gift for literature, music or art. They're all programmed to do their best for the unborn child, even if they don't want children at all or are too old to conceive. No, you conclude wrong. There was nothing, or little really new. So, "The Blind Watchmaker" by its very title tells you that it is explaining the details of how apparently consciously designed intricate objects, are not designed, but just a result of random process. This is a trivial deduction to the theory of replicators. In addition, it is well recognised that it was the selfish gene book that really made the **** hit the fan. I genuinely got bored with the book. boggle! I don't agree. Reviews mean f'all. Have you actually read all the "review" on the later editions of Hawking's "Brief history of time". It make you want to vomit. Sure, his a very clever dude, but he is ceratyinly not a god. I didn't say he was. In fact he admitted to wasting much time working on 'singularities' with Roger Penrose donkey's years ago. As noted above, it was the selfish gene that revolutionised the approach to evolution as to the body being a mere vehicle for the masters, the genes and memes. Let's just put it down to a matter of personal preference, then. [not particularly relevant Einstein example snipped] The whole emphases on Darwin is wrong, it is a legacy theory. The fundamental idea is the Replicator, as such, a "handicap" is just a specific detail of how some particular Replicators can replicate better. I'm not sure what you're driving at here but I don't like the sound of it. Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone (me) with indisputable expertise in the area. Nonsense. It was just something that I could not be bothered to debate. I have little interest in economics, other than how much I get paid, which concerns me greatly. LOL! Yeah, whatever. You quit while you were behind. You should have quit earlier but I think you just about backed out before you sustained any terminal damage. :-) If your claiming that Dawkins retracted the basics of Replicators, then your dreaming. I'll have to see what Miller is specifically addressing. I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm simply saying that Dawkins softened his line of selfishness a good measure from the position you wrongly (now) attribute to him. I have read a few bits and bobs from creationists who claim that Dawkins recanted on his evolutionary views. It was all crap, as he himself explained. Yes I know. The attempts were laughable. Well, obviously, you could not refute my argument that selfishness is inherent. As I said, its a tautology. It can't be contradicted. Okay, well let's put you this question: if everyone is basically selfish, why do some people help other people out on newsgroups? I think I know what your answer will be but I want to see it from you yourself in black and white. And don't be afraid this time, Kev. Evolution's not my specialist area. :-) -- "I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:52:46 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote: Paul Burridge wrote: On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then? No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature men remaining unmarried. You've lost me here. Its a been a while since I read the selfish gene, but there is no way Dawkins would hold to such a silly idea. I'm not suggesting he held *this* particular loony idea. The example from Tressel was only that; an example. No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original Must have been. However, as I said minor changes in position are not important, one cant get all the details right first time. Indeed. Hence the re-think between the books. They were what? 10 years apart? People move on and refine their ideas. You should read Wittgenstein to see how far a man can change his outlook over the course of his life! I remember when I did not understand the details well enough to apply the theory to picking up women. A naive approach would be to do things for the women's direct interest, i.e. maybe the women could survive better, and pass on her genes better that way, i.e acting on the assumption that a women would chose if you were "nice" to her. Boy was I wrong. A women will do what ever maximises the number of her genes. I think you've phrased that rather poorly but I believe I know what you mean. This results in one main fact. She chooses a mate, essentially, only on the basis of good gene stock. She doesn't want a nice person because this would mean her offspring would also be nice, and thereby do things not in there own best interest. She wants a "mean" offspring. That is, treat them mean, keeps them keen The theories great. It explains quite nicely why women chose those yobbys that beat them up. Can't agree there. Women are basically genetically obliged to pick the best mate they can get their hands on, given the limitations imposed by their own pulling abilities. What they are looking for in every case is a mate who can give their offspring the best chance of survival and 'thrival' in this wide, mean world. Interestingly enough, the qualities the male must display to succeed change according to different ages (historical ages, not biological) and cultures. At varying times, men have been favoured because of, for example, they're exceptionally good fighters. Or unusually good hunters... later in history, we see female preferences based on wealth and status. But in countries where for idealogical reasons, all people are 'made to be equal' like the old Soviet Union or the 'old' China, females must pick according to other criteria such as a gift for literature, music or art. They're all programmed to do their best for the unborn child, even if they don't want children at all or are too old to conceive. No, you conclude wrong. There was nothing, or little really new. So, "The Blind Watchmaker" by its very title tells you that it is explaining the details of how apparently consciously designed intricate objects, are not designed, but just a result of random process. This is a trivial deduction to the theory of replicators. In addition, it is well recognised that it was the selfish gene book that really made the **** hit the fan. I genuinely got bored with the book. boggle! I don't agree. Reviews mean f'all. Have you actually read all the "review" on the later editions of Hawking's "Brief history of time". It make you want to vomit. Sure, his a very clever dude, but he is ceratyinly not a god. I didn't say he was. In fact he admitted to wasting much time working on 'singularities' with Roger Penrose donkey's years ago. As noted above, it was the selfish gene that revolutionised the approach to evolution as to the body being a mere vehicle for the masters, the genes and memes. Let's just put it down to a matter of personal preference, then. [not particularly relevant Einstein example snipped] The whole emphases on Darwin is wrong, it is a legacy theory. The fundamental idea is the Replicator, as such, a "handicap" is just a specific detail of how some particular Replicators can replicate better. I'm not sure what you're driving at here but I don't like the sound of it. Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone (me) with indisputable expertise in the area. Nonsense. It was just something that I could not be bothered to debate. I have little interest in economics, other than how much I get paid, which concerns me greatly. LOL! Yeah, whatever. You quit while you were behind. You should have quit earlier but I think you just about backed out before you sustained any terminal damage. :-) If your claiming that Dawkins retracted the basics of Replicators, then your dreaming. I'll have to see what Miller is specifically addressing. I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm simply saying that Dawkins softened his line of selfishness a good measure from the position you wrongly (now) attribute to him. I have read a few bits and bobs from creationists who claim that Dawkins recanted on his evolutionary views. It was all crap, as he himself explained. Yes I know. The attempts were laughable. Well, obviously, you could not refute my argument that selfishness is inherent. As I said, its a tautology. It can't be contradicted. Okay, well let's put you this question: if everyone is basically selfish, why do some people help other people out on newsgroups? I think I know what your answer will be but I want to see it from you yourself in black and white. And don't be afraid this time, Kev. Evolution's not my specialist area. :-) -- "I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com