The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <email@example.com> <3DB2E3CE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3DB41488.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DB43497.A32B8380@webaccess.net> <3DB45343.E61C1CCB@webaccess.net> <3DB466BC.593D4D35@webaccess.net> <3DB5452A.B792F3AC@webaccess.net>
Subject: Re: How does a mixer work?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:01:02 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:01:09 BST
"Chuck Simmons" wrote in message
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > "Chuck Simmons" wrote in message
> > news:3DB466BC.593D4D35@webaccess.net...
> > The Fourier transform is a
> > > mathematical construct and is not physics at all by any means and
> > never
> > > can be.
> > The Fourier transform is used to model physical processes. If the
> > is correct, so are the physical results the mathematical model
> That is application and has nothing to do with Fourier theory.
> Application is independent of the mathematics used. This must be so
> because even in very simple cases, internal consistency in
> is lost when inductive reasoning (scientific method) is allowed. One
> should never confuse mathematics and science.
> > >It is quite impossible to argue a mathematical point using
> > > physics as the basis.
> > >It is entirely wrong and cannot be justified.
> > Of course it can.
> No. You are then forcing inductive thinking on mathematics. This fails
> because scientific method is incompatible with mathematics. You cannot
> prove anything at all in mathematics with an experiment. This is by
> very definition of mathematics.
> > > There are some charlatan mathematicians who do it but they are
> > > taken seriously. Certainly, in my educational career, I heard such
> > > incredible nonsense from physics professors that I can't take you
> > > seriously if you use physics as authority in mathematics.
> > >
> > Your arguing from ignorance. However, I agree there are some
> > mathematicians that overstep their boundary.
> But I see that we would not agree on which ones overstep their
> > > I am not familiar with any
> > > of your physics arguments
> > I know you dont.
> > (which, of course, have nothing whatever to do
> > > with harmonic analysis).
> > >
> > But they do with regards to a real, physical system.
> But you can't reverse the implication. That is, you can't use physics
> prove a mathematical point. That is the charlatanism I was talking
I never claimed you could. That would daft. I said that the mathematics
"proved" the physics, if we assume that the one to one corresponded
between the mathematical model and the physical system being modelled,
has been validated.
> > > Anyway, you seem to be on the numerical side of things. I detest
> > > numerical analysis and do it under duress.
> > I have shown you an inescapable problem in measuring properties in
> > real world.
> So then this all hinges on whether we consider this a mathematical
> exercise or a problem in physics. I took it to be the former and you
> took it to be the latter. The two views cannot be compatible unless
> is taken to avoid reversing the implication. The tail waging the dog
> does not work.
The mathematics "prove" that there is an inherent measurement problem in
the real world. You cannot measure frequency 100% accurately, without
taking infinite time.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup