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> <_FTy9.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: output impedance
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:18:47 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:18:47 GMT
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
> > Sixty years experience of what, exactly? Being the loud mouthed bin
> > at the back of the workshop? If you really do have experience (and I
> > you do) you've even been using the theorem quoted, probably without
> > to think of it.
> Perfectly correct. You've made my point. Theorems are unnecessary.
> need not exist.
However, they can be very useful indeed. Theorems correctly understood
and applied can save a lot useless effort.
> I must have been using theorems and using them correctly without ever
> heard of the people who apparently became famous by giving their names
> them in the various 'bibles'.
> To mention just the name of a theorem (whatever it is) parrot-fashion,
> support of a personal argument conveys no additional information. If
> anything it conveys only a lack of self confidence, a sense of
> the person trying to prove or demonstrate something, or he feels under
However, if the person understands the theorem, its an excellent way of
proving their point.
> 50% of people who refer to 'theorems' misunderstand them anyway and so
> inadvertently misquote them. Or mention them in the wrong context.
> unconsciously attempt to bathe in the glory of predecessors. At least
> have heard of the thing somewhere and demonstrate a reasonably good
> Theorem names are useful for lecturers to hand out to students as
> of what to swat up just before examinations. They therefore restrict
> region of study. All is reduced to automatic thought processes where
> little error can lead to a catastrophy . In working life a thorough
> understanding of a subject has no need of them.
I disagree. A thorough understanding of a subject *inherently means*
that you understand the fundamental theorems associated with that
subject. If you don't understand its basic theorems, you simply do not
understand the subject. Period. A theorem is usually a tidy summary of a
large content of ideas. They give a general overview of what is possible
without being concerned with any of the little details.
I agree that *most* do not understand *most* theorems. This is quite
obvious from some of the postings in the NG. e.g. The sampling theorem
is concerend with bandwidth not frequency, or that the Nyquist theorem
allows gain greater then one at 0 degs, yet still be quite stable etc.
etc. However, understanding these theorems correctly can give pne a
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