studiot

So what is the additive inverse of the complex number z = (a +ib) , given that a or b or both could themselves be either positive or negative ?

1) I think you completely misunderstood my point. 2) Possibly I misunderstood the second part of your reply, that is why I said I was not sure if I had correctly understood what you were saying about human though an existence. We are agreed about this second point then.

I see two problems in your deep philosophical analysis of existence. Firstly the difficulty of using the formal structure of Philosophy to analyse something more basic than any of the concepts you employ. This is like trying to count before you have any idea what a number is. Secondly the notion that you seem to be propounding that existence is merely a property bestowed by the human mind. Things are known to have existed before there were any humans. Further humans are still discovering the existence of things that now human has had in his mind before the discovery.

Here are the first couple of times (pun intended) I mentioned it. What I am trying to describe is the notion that just as we might say "There exists a road from Ghent to Aix" , ie it has a spread in space, we should consider how something exists in time.

🙂 Thank's Eise for this and all the rest +1. It's good to see you back and on top form. Lots of cogent food for thought in your post. However there is one thing I would like your opinion on, though you perhaps missed it, The link I drew between existence and time. Your rain example an my process examples for instance. Interestingly there is a parallel between Eise removing the material round a hole and the notion of removing all the haecceities. If these are removed, does the object still exist ? For instance if I remove all the sweetener from a child's sweet does it still exist despite the excipients ? What about the placebo in a drug trial? A tablet is a small lump given to a patient against a particular condition. The placebo is still a tablet, despite the absense of active ingredients. Thank you by the way for introducing me to yet another new word.

How does that old saying go ? "There's none so blind as won't see"

Don't they also observe your actions, directly or indirectly ? Aren't the drugs also more humane then ECT ? I am sorry if you have suffered personally, I only have second hand experience of these treatments, but my observations are that matters have improved quite a bit in the last 40 years, although they have a long long way to go yet. I do know of one medical Professor of the subject who refuses to diagnose initially, but says, Let's start with the least intrusive (some tablets for depression) and if that 'cures' it then that is your diagnosis. If not we can work up the scale. One important consequence is that certain diagnoses incur certain legal and social restrictions so it is best not to have them.

I see you joined us quite a few years ago, but have not been very active. With posts like today's hopefully this will change and we will see more of you. +1

Actually there is another 'explanation'. This is a another case where not one but two sign conventions (as in the use of the symbols + and - ) are in play and both have to be satisfied. Each has a different technical meaning or operation. This is similar to situations in Thermodynamics, Mechanics and Electrics. Brackets can be employed to highlight this situation.

I assume it was still April 1st in your time zone when you posted this. Happy Easter.

Once again you have a point but coupled it with 'attitude'. There is a difference between sound waves and light waves in that in is only possible to combine light waves in very special circustances, but the whole essence of 'music' is due to harmonic combinations. I don't know how much maths you understand but whole numbers are important in harmonic combinations.

Thank you both for keeping vigil and bothering to answer my question.

Endy has already answered this beautifully. +1 from me as well. I would just like to emphasis that the colour of the discharge is not to do with the discharge electricity. It is to do with the gases present. This is why a 'spark' inside a discharge tube is not blue but the more usual shades of yellow/white. There is no nitrogen in the flourescent tube. Note the light from the tube is conditioned by the internal phosphor coating, not the spark or the gases present.

Of course not, particularly as I don't have a watch. Take an OC81P and scrape (some of) the black paint off the case. Connect it into a suitable circuit without any power supply, battery or otherwise. Shine a light on the OC81P And lo and behold a current will flow in the circuit. Take an A47 - 18W Connect it into a suitable circuit, Switch on Why do you think the screen lights up? Take an ECC81. Connect it into a suitable circuit with a heater supply, but no anode voltage. Low and behold there is an anode current flowing. Why do you think this is ?

I don't have a watch.

There seems to have been a spate of new members posting a short question and, following an answer or two, ending with the very scientific phrase "issue got solved" Is there any significance in this ?

In other words you don't know what you are talking about and have no wish to learn. Thank you for the confirmation. Thread reported.

When you have responded to my earlier points. Why are you being so awkward with the only person in this thread who has not directly challenged you until now ? I repeat you have made some good points, but add that you also appear so harbour some misunderstandings. I am offering a serious discussion, not a game of ping pong.

Of course it does. There are at least three possible mechanisms.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to have current without voltage and voltage without current, although the two are often linked. This simple fact is often overlooked.

Of course it does, except that it is not electricity in conductors, but electricity on conductors. But this wave behaviour is quite different from that of optical fibre systems. And, of course, you must then be talking about alternating current or transients. But then there are the electrical engineers' circuit models and physicists' models and chemists' models all for different purposes. And there is conduction current and displacement current And, of course, electrons are not the only current carriers, some are not even physical particles. So pony up and pin down some specifics please. Otherwise we shall be forever in the he-said-this - she-said-that mode.

Can we clear some things up here ? This thread did not start with sufficient information for a sensible discussion and has IMHO deteriorated since through lack of sufficient OP input. What do you want to achieve from this thread ?

I suggest there is some confusion here between numbers, functions and equations in Mathematics. Remembering that I already overestimated IndianScientist's mathematical sophistication I await his reply to avoid confusing him.

I'm sure you don't quite mean that. 🙂

On re reading the OP, you could be right, I may have misread and jumped to the wrong conclusion as to the question. If that is the case my apologies to IndianScientist and thank you John for the correction, +1