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.
From: "John S. Dyson"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <7a9M9.6086$jM5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Audio noise in diff amps
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:26:00 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:18:04 EST
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message news:ZZzM9.email@example.com...
> John S. Dyson wrote:
> > "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
> >>> news:uPdulMBg7dA+Ew1j@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
> >>>> 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.
> >>> John
> >> 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..
I do have brain-farts once in a while, and I'll try harder to find the
reference to the info -- as I have said, I might have misread the
context. I had always thought the i & j thing to be the same also,
but the small difference might have been removed through history
(and that might also be the reason for contention.)
I am remembering that it was in printed material, so that helps
to narrow it down (I probably have over 200-500 books -- not including
data books, books from school and the ilk, so it takes time.)
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup