From: "John S. Dyson"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <7a9M9.6086$jM5.email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Audio noise in diff amps
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:38:19 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:30:35 EST
"Don Pearce" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:12:00 -0500, "JD" wrote:
> >"John Woodgate" wrote in message
> >> >
> >> Apart from typos, they have both been right all along. The whole shebang
> >> is just due to different interpretations of the symbol 'dBm'. When I
> >> meticulously correct the wrong use of symbols (which I rarely dare to do
> >> on the net), I am called 'pedantic', but symbols are part of our
> >> technical language and if we write 'green' but mean 'red' (or even
> >> 'Greek'), there are bound to be disputes.
> >It is hard to decide when to help with 'correctness' or assume that people
> >really understand what is going on. Even i and j for the imaginary operator
> >are slightly different (but often ignored.)
> >I believe in this rather esoteric discussion, that correctness should overcome
> >'conflict avoidance.' It is helpful for those who are learning.
> As far as I know, i and j are identical - the difference is that
> mathematicians tend towards i, while engineers prefer j.
> Is there really more to it than that?
I'll look it up (again.) It has to do with whether it is sqrt(-1) or -sqrt(-1)
or somesuch. Often, it ends up that EEs will use the i definition for j,
but there really was a difference (or vice-versa). I found this odd fact in either an old
IEEE journal or in a ref book. I'll try to revisit my 'steps' to remember where