studiot

Simulpost. Apt since we're into simulations here. 😄 My encounter with feedforward concerned high quality hifi amps years ago. Here is a more modern net paper on them. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269101733_TOWARDS_A_GENERALISATION_OF_ERROR_CORRECTION_AMPLIFIERS

I'm glad this has stimulated some unexpected thinking and I look forward to learning the results in your next post.

Thanks iNow. So why does this option not appear in the Edit Profile option that you first get ?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your maths. I do however, hope that you are not denying the standard mathematical trigonometric parametrisation of a circle in terms of the radius and an angle. That was correct. Since you mention ontology several times and ontological relationships more recently, I have been looking into them. Wikipedia is particularly interesting and suprising in this respect, as I have learned, is that there are more schools of thought of ontology and ontological relationships than there are 'interpretations' of quantum mechanics. So it seems that there really is a language barrier involved, but not between English and other languages, but between mathematics and philosophy. I hold that whenever you wish to do mathematics you should employ the definitions of mathematics, not of philosophy or any other discipline. I note that you and KJW are working towards the analysis that I offered several times, particularly to start at the beginning with set theory. I now see that this is even more important because of the fundamental difference between the precise mathematical definition of a relation (or relationship) and the philosophical one. I will also thank you to discontinue the inappropriate personal comments. You have no way of knowing what goes on inside another's head.

To whom it may concern, please look into both these quations. I was asked by another member how to change their avatar. As I have never done this, I looked through the settings and other facilities available by clicking on studiot at the top right of the home page. However I could not find the option in 'edit profile' or any of the other options. I did note though that members profiles still contain the option for a Skype address. But of course Skype no longer exists so can I suggest that option be updated ?

This diagram shows entirely unsuitable support conditions at both supports. A good deal more information is required before a more accurate structural analysis can be performed. You didn't respond to my last answer to yourself either, back in May.

Why only one support ? The OP had at least 2 I'm sorry what's the difference ?

Well this is really somewhat out of my field, but I am aware of recent medical developments in man/machine interfacing including involving repurposing nerve connections and special purpose computer chip implants to regain lost motor control. Perhaps these are the people to pitch your thinking to ? +1 to swansont for a good question/point

Did you have a question or point for discussion ?

But you are addressing my OP with this statement. That's discussion for you.

In feedback techniques the sampling is done at the output, and returned to the input so the correction always lags the output. In feedforwrd techniques the sampling is done at input and fedforward through a separate path to coincide with the output in a corrective polarity. Feed Forward Techniques Electronics Today International April 1976 page 68

Hello and welcome. I suggest you read the posting rules first Here is a good start

No need to apologise, relativistic causality is included. But for instance I have't seen any biologist responsed about any form of biogenesis or the chicken and egg question. So please carry on the discussion, I didn't mean to put you off.

Yes and No. Every single one of those states has exactly the same chance of occurring. This means that the state you called order is not unique. In other words you can take any state you like and call it 'order' and make the same statistical argument. Can we please return to discussing the wider aspect than just relativity. That is why I posted in Pholosophy, not the relativity section. Thanks for your reply, keep them coming. In particular you didn't mention feed forward, which includes various arror correcting techniques that are simultaneous.

Not quite what I was thinking but yes another example to be explained. No I don't think so. Turn your Fender or Marshal up and place the mike in front of the speaker.

Given that you (hopefully) have some respect for the intellect of the other person the rational consequence of "It seems nonsensical to me" is to ask what they mean. This is exactly what I am trying to do for you, and why I say your second paragraph is so much better +1. Asking about Length is an excellent question. In the context of your proposal and our discussion, Length is a specific case of distance, Distance being the more general. Length is the distance between two points on the same object, usually 'start' and 'end' points. More generally distance includes the separation of two different objects, or the same object after movement. The thing about both Length and distance is that they can be considered very generally, without numbers, and some relations concerning them can be studied. For instance in elementary plane geometry we learn about similar triangles. Without numbers we can deduce that they are the same shape and that the (Lengths) of the sides are all in the same proportion. (Which is what I think you are trying to do with your diagram). The instant we introduce numbers, some very interesting things happen. We can give the concept (length)2 a meaning and see that it is different from the concept of (Length) in a very special way. If we put successive numbers into (Length) we obtain an arithmetic series. If we put successive numbers into (Length)2 we obtain a geometric series. In your case you have β = r*sinθ and κ = r*cosθ or the other way round I can't remember which so please correct me if I got it wrong. so (r*sinθ)2 + ( r*cosθ)2 = r2(sin2θ + cos2θ) By introducing the object (radius) r you have introduced Length and and thereby introduced a metric. Note that a metric may be formed by many different distance functions, which may produce different results. The metric must contain only one distance function. In your case the Manhatten metric coincides with the euclidian metric for Length, but not for distance. This is because Length is always measured along a line. I will be going out soon for the rest of Saturday.

Philosophy deals with the notion of cause and effect, both identifiable with the latter following the former. What I have never seen so would like to ask is How does Philosophy address feedback and feedforward processes in relation to cause and effect ?

What's a factor of 10 between friends ? I only said 64 and 97 because 6.4 and 9.7 don't have any integer factors. Anyway 0.1Thz =100Ghz is just about right for beefing up my wifi. I re read the OP and in fact harmonics were mentioned. My brain now tells me that this generation technique has been used in the past at much lower frequencies. In fact I had a vanle af sig gen that worked that way to about 10 Mhz. It may still be in my garage under a load of other junk.

What about Rosevelt's four freedoms ? I do like Norman Rockwell, by the way.

Noted. Hopefully these interviews are in English.

To meet the OP spec as 64th and 97th harmonics (6.4Thz and 9.7Thz) the fundamental would surely have to be 100Ghz ?

I have to agree with Xerxes. It is arrogant to say that because you do not understand it a statement or question is nonsense. (Note I do not agree with his comment about geometry. There are areas of geometry that do not require a metric and the 'metry' refers to the process of measurement, not to a metric. In fact the full translation is the measurement of the Earth (Geo). Of course the anything in (anything)2 is a number. There is nothing I said that suggests otherwise. I was rather expecting you to tell me (correctly) that if one wants to take the square 'anything' must be a number. That is exactly my point. Of course, also, the anything may or may not have units. If it does have units then squaring will also square the units. It is also true that beta and kappa are length variables which in turn means that you must have a metric to assign numerical values to them. In ordinary old fashioned geometry a metric allows the congruence relation, a lack of a metric is restricted to a similarity relation (which I have already mentioned without response). In my last but one post I offered you a similar (comparable) situation in terms of the 'constitutive equations or relations' of fluid mechanics where a constraint is defined by an invariant constant. Unfortunately the silence of your response to this was deafening.

This season of Guy Fawkes is is good time for all to examine the underpinning of their conclusions. Sadly you have refused to do this. In particular you have refused to explain how you can square anything that is not a number (with or without units), despite being asked several times. Instead your alleged response to any question has been repetition of the original unfounded presentation and all the self contradictions it contains. Unfortunately the broken record technique is neither valid in Science nor Philosophy. So I am faced with two options. I could formally report this thread for total lack of support for the claims made. Or I could simply walk away, shaking my head in sorrow, like others who also hoped for a useful and perhaps enlightening discussion.

Interesting thought, thanks. However I'm not quite sure what both 64 and 97 could be harmonics of since 97 is a prime number.

Thank you for replying, Ken. +1 not only for that but also for the manner in which you have replied. This really is a good example of how discussion should work. I have not heard of any of your references, but rest assured I will investigate them as potentially very interesting. A most informative reply.