| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Your explanation was informative and easy to follow. I think Jeff's suggestion is a good one. Once you implement those changes, your definition will be unstoppable. --Nicholas Gentry | Your explanation was informative and easy to follow. I think Jeff's suggestion is a good one. Once you implement those changes, your definition will be unstoppable. --Nicholas Gentry | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | Your explanation is very clear. - Jun Hyeong park | ||
Latest revision as of 11:21, 19 September 2008
Correct and clear! - Ronny Wijaya
Looks pretty good to me! -- Kathleen Schremser
This is a good definition and the use of the mathematical definition makes it even better. -- Aishwar Sabesan
This definition works for me. -- Derek Hopper
One problem with the definition of a non-linear system. It should be worded as "...system is called "Non-Linear" if there exists constants $ \alpha, \beta \! $ (part of the Complex Number domain) and there exists inputs $ x_1(t), x_2(t)\! $ (or $ x_1[n], x_2[n]\! $) yielding..." It only takes one set of constants/ inputs to prove a system non-linear. -- Jeff Kubascik
it makes sense for me. very clear definition!.
Your explanation was informative and easy to follow. I think Jeff's suggestion is a good one. Once you implement those changes, your definition will be unstoppable. --Nicholas Gentry
Your explanation is very clear. - Jun Hyeong park
