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.