| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Your definitions look good. You may want to consider adding some examples as well. - Joseph Mazzei | Your definitions look good. You may want to consider adding some examples as well. - Joseph Mazzei | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Correct and to the point - Ronny Wijaya | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | These definitions are concise and correct, but adding a few examples or a mathematical definition would help as well. As mentioned above, a non-causal system may depend on future inputs or on future inputs and past and present or both. -Zachary Curosh | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Your definition of the causal system is clear and correct. With the right choice of words, you make this concept easy to understand. - Bavorndej Chanyasak | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | Your definitions seem accurate and easy to understand. I specially like your definition for a non-causal system because you mentioned the fact that a system will still be non-causal if there are past/present inputs affecting the outputs along with a future input. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Vivek Ravi | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Looks good to me. But what about the system y(t) = x(sin(t))? I remember seeing that somewhere and I wasn't sure if it was causal or not. - Tyler Johnson | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | You made a logical mistake in the second defintion: the negation of "for all" is "there exists". --[[User:Mboutin|Mboutin]] 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | Your definations appear to be perfectly fine .Id consider adding a few examples for better understanding. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:09, 19 September 2008
Your definition of causality seems sufficient, but you may want to mention in your definition of non-causal if the outputs are only affected by future inputs or if past and present inputs can affect the output as well. -Ryan Scott
Your definitions of causal and non-causal systems look good to me. -Christen Juzeszyn
Your definitions look good. You may want to consider adding some examples as well. - Joseph Mazzei
Correct and to the point - Ronny Wijaya
These definitions are concise and correct, but adding a few examples or a mathematical definition would help as well. As mentioned above, a non-causal system may depend on future inputs or on future inputs and past and present or both. -Zachary Curosh
Your definition of the causal system is clear and correct. With the right choice of words, you make this concept easy to understand. - Bavorndej Chanyasak
Your definitions seem accurate and easy to understand. I specially like your definition for a non-causal system because you mentioned the fact that a system will still be non-causal if there are past/present inputs affecting the outputs along with a future input.
Vivek Ravi
Looks good to me. But what about the system y(t) = x(sin(t))? I remember seeing that somewhere and I wasn't sure if it was causal or not. - Tyler Johnson
You made a logical mistake in the second defintion: the negation of "for all" is "there exists". --Mboutin 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Your definations appear to be perfectly fine .Id consider adding a few examples for better understanding.
