Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:51:15 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:51:21 GMT
John S. Dyson wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>> 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 it is.
j and i are identically interpreted as far as compex maths goes..
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.