Difference between revisions of "Talk:3.A Aishwar Sabesan - Causal System ECE301Fall2008mboutin" - Rhea

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.