On 10 Aug 2004 15:26:56 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) writes:
On 10 Aug 2004 10:19:38 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote:
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) writes:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:39:51 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
Wow, that's eloquent! 
Hey, any way you can get the idea across!
Actually the idea of superposition goes all the way out to abstract
mathematics. You can consider a "system" a mapping, call it f(.), from
one domain (the input), call it X, to another domain (the output),
call it Y. Thus Y = f(X). In abstract algebra, a mapping is
"homomorphic" if, for two inputs x1 and x2, f(x1 + x2) = f(x1) +
f(x2). Note that the operation "+" on the left side of the "=" is in
the domain X, while on the right side it is in the domain Y. A
"system" (in the engineering sense) obeys the superposition principle
if and only if the mapping corresponding to that system is
homomorphic. In other words, "homorphism" and "superposition" are the
same thing.
--
So I take it that you are not a fan of plain english. . .
If the concepts involved were just a matter of "plain english" then it
probably wouldn't have taken mathematicians, physicists, and engineers
centuries to formalize them.
I always thought they were slow.. .
Also, I have found that, while intuition (which is what I call the
level of explanation you were attempting) can be helpful at certain
stages of understanding, over-relying on it can lead to errors in
analysis.
Agreed but lean about intuition:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...293460-4259040
:It is necessary, if you want to do more than blow smoke in
front of mirrors, to formally derive the results one is asserting.
--
Feel free to imply that I am an uncouth blowhard.
Hey!?! Peace, man! I ain't trying to rain on your parade. I sorta
like you. If I'm implying you're an uncouth blowhard, then I'm also
implying I am too! There've been way too many times when I ASSUMED
my intuition was correct only to CRASH AND BURN! It ain't pretty.
I also ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, and if that is what I
implied I apologize. I made the low score (C+) in my last class (OK,
so it was a graduate engineering course on error correction with
some of the sharpest minds from China and India attending), and
my first post-high school education was DeVry (definitely more of
a "hands-on" school than a theory school).
I think the two worlds (theory vs. practice) are both way cool in
their own respects, but to actually unite the two is totally way
way way cool.... I get a hard-on trying to do that.
I've done the analysis, calculations and analysed the experimental
results, spotted some circular arguments and other errors. It ain't
"rocket science" but where were you during this time with your faultly
BS detector? I want some numbers from you now.
Sorry sir. I'll try to improve and cough up the goods from now on...
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
, 919-472-1124
Since I am the result of a liason between Howard Ferstler and a sheep,
you should not expect too much of me:
All is revealed:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe...&num=100&hl=en
Anyhow I have the 'flue and may be dead tomorrow, in which case could
you take a look at:
http://www.wareing.dircon.co.uk/images/Bingo.jpg
and translate it into a formula for Bob Cain.
Sorry I've got to die now, byeeee.