integration of a continuous function

illywhacker wrote:
> 
> On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > illywhacker wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 25, 4:12 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > > > illywhacker wrote:
> > > > > > is sufficiently oversampled.
> >
> > > > > Jim, I do not know why you feel obliged to try to explain to me
> >
> > > > I didn't feel obliged not even a little bit.  You asked me a question. Now your
> > > > whining because I chose to provide a response.
> >
> > > No Jim. You answered my question 'Did I miss something?'
> >
> > OK so in the future if you ask again you only want to hear about the parts you
> > didn't miss. Right? I'll make a note.
> 
> Jim, Jim: that was the only question I asked. It was rhetorical, but I
> guess your reading skills are not up to detecting that. 

The question you asked was Did I miss anything? You missed almost everything.
And yes of course I understood when you asked the question you thought you had
not. Here is some friendly advice: If you are going to engage in a pissing
contest you need to unzip your fly. You are never going to win by letting it all
run down your pant leg. 


>I knew I had
> not missed anything and that it was you that had failed to read
> carefully enough.

The issue of whether it is setup as a force or acceleration sensor is
immaterial. The manufacturer could set it up to be somewhere in between, but
they would probably never do that because it would completely mystify some
people.

-jim

> However, even if we take the question straight, it
> was not out of the blue as you have chosen to quote it. It referred
> only to the nature of piezoelectric sensors and not to the ontological
> status of force nor to first-year linear algebra. And even it had
> referred to those things, your answers were amateurish at best.
> 
> Look again at the post. And try to pay more attention.
> 
> illywhacker;

On Feb 25, 6:11&#4294967295;pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> illywhacker wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > > illywhacker wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 4:12 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > > > > illywhacker wrote:
> > > > > > > is sufficiently oversampled.
>
> > > > > > Jim, I do not know why you feel obliged to try to explain to me
>
> > > > > I didn't feel obliged not even a little bit. &#4294967295;You asked me a question. Now your
> > > > > whining because I chose to provide a response.
>
> > > > No Jim. You answered my question 'Did I miss something?'
>
> > > OK so in the future if you ask again you only want to hear about the parts you
> > > didn't miss. Right? I'll make a note.
>
> > Jim, Jim: that was the only question I asked. It was rhetorical, but I
> > guess your reading skills are not up to detecting that.
>
> The question you asked was Did I miss anything? You missed almost everything.
> And yes of course I understood when you asked the question you thought you had
> not. Here is some friendly advice: If you are going to engage in a pissing
> contest you need to unzip your fly. You are never going to win by letting it all
> run down your pant leg.

Oh dear! Expletives. Now we know you are in trouble. I am beginning to
detect something troll-like in these repeated selective quotations and
misrepresentations.

> >I knew I had
> > not missed anything and that it was you that had failed to read
> > carefully enough.
>
> The issue of whether it is setup as a force or acceleration sensor is
> immaterial.

If it is immaterial, why did you pay it so much attention in a
previous post?

> The manufacturer could set it up to be somewhere in between, but
> they would probably never do that because it would completely mystify some
> people.

Perhaps you do not realize that the hardware is quite different in the
two cases.

illywhacker;

On Feb 25, 6:11&#4294967295;pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> illywhacker wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > > illywhacker wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 4:12 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > > > > illywhacker wrote:
> > > > > > > is sufficiently oversampled.
>
> > > > > > Jim, I do not know why you feel obliged to try to explain to me
>
> > > > > I didn't feel obliged not even a little bit. &#4294967295;You asked me a question. Now your
> > > > > whining because I chose to provide a response.
>
> > > > No Jim. You answered my question 'Did I miss something?'
>
> > > OK so in the future if you ask again you only want to hear about the parts you
> > > didn't miss. Right? I'll make a note.
>
> > Jim, Jim: that was the only question I asked. It was rhetorical, but I
> > guess your reading skills are not up to detecting that.
>
> The question you asked was Did I miss anything? You missed almost everything.
> And yes of course I understood when you asked the question you thought you had
> not. Here is some friendly advice: If you are going to engage in a pissing
> contest you need to unzip your fly. You are never going to win by letting it all
> run down your pant leg.

Oh dear! Expletives. Now we know you are in trouble. I am beginning
to  detect something troll-like in these repeated selective quotations
and  misrepresentations.

> >I knew I had
> > not missed anything and that it was you that had failed to read
> > carefully enough.
> The issue of whether it is setup as a force or acceleration sensor is
> immaterial.

If it is immaterial, why did you pay it so much attention in a
previous post?

> The manufacturer could set it up to be somewhere in between, but
> they would probably never do that because it would completely mystify some
> people.

Perhaps you do not realize that the hardware is quite different in
the  two cases.

illywhacker;

illywhacker wrote:

> >
> > > Jim, Jim: that was the only question I asked. It was rhetorical, but I
> > > guess your reading skills are not up to detecting that.
> >
> > The question you asked was Did I miss anything? You missed almost everything.
> > And yes of course I understood when you asked the question you thought you had
> > not. Here is some friendly advice: If you are going to engage in a pissing
> > contest you need to unzip your fly. You are never going to win by letting it all
> > run down your pant leg.
> 
> Oh dear! Expletives. Now we know you are in trouble. I am beginning
> to  detect something troll-like in these repeated selective quotations
> and  misrepresentations.

Misrepresentations???? You think that calling this a pissing contest is a
misrepresentation?


> 
> > >I knew I had
> > > not missed anything and that it was you that had failed to read
> > > carefully enough.
> > The issue of whether it is setup as a force or acceleration sensor is
> > immaterial.
> 
> If it is immaterial, why did you pay it so much attention in a
> previous post?

You really need to work on your aim and try to be a little consistent. First you
whine that I didn't pay enough attention to the difference between the 2 types
of sensors and now you want to know why I am paying "so much attention" to the
difference?


> 
> > The manufacturer could set it up to be somewhere in between, but
> > they would probably never do that because it would completely mystify some
> > people.
> 
> Perhaps you do not realize that the hardware is quite different in
> the  two cases.

of course, If the hardware  weren't different the 2 would be identical. The
hardware in a piano is different that the hardware of a guitar but they both
generate an output from the same thing -> vibrating strings. It is the
difference in the hardware that produces the difference in the output spectrum. 
	

-jim

On Feb 25, 9:36&#4294967295;pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> illywhacker wrote:
>
> > > > Jim, Jim: that was the only question I asked. It was rhetorical, but I
> > > > guess your reading skills are not up to detecting that.
>
> > > The question you asked was Did I miss anything? You missed almost everything.
> > > And yes of course I understood when you asked the question you thought you had
> > > not. Here is some friendly advice: If you are going to engage in a pissing
> > > contest you need to unzip your fly. You are never going to win by letting it all
> > > run down your pant leg.
>
> > Oh dear! Expletives. Now we know you are in trouble. I am beginning
> > to &#4294967295;detect something troll-like in these repeated selective quotations
> > and &#4294967295;misrepresentations.
>
> Misrepresentations???? You think that calling this a pissing contest is a
> misrepresentation?

Another misrepresentation. Your misrepresentations concerned what I
said, not your "I can use bad words too" characterization of it. That
would have been a mis-presentation or a mis-characterization, since it
was not re-presenting anything. As I say, you are becoming more and
more troll-like. I had better check out your previous posts to see if
you always behave like this.

> > > >I knew I had
> > > > not missed anything and that it was you that had failed to read
> > > > carefully enough.
> > > The issue of whether it is setup as a force or acceleration sensor is
> > > immaterial.
>
> > If it is immaterial, why did you pay it so much attention in a
> > previous post?
>
> You really need to work on your aim and try to be a little consistent. First you
> whine that I didn't pay enough attention to the difference between the 2 types
> of sensors and now you want to know why I am paying "so much attention" to the
> difference?

You are using abusive language again, Jim. This might fly with your
'buddies', but it just seems a little juvenile and unintelligent
anywhere else.  You insisted that it was not force but acceleration
(or rather, motion was the word you used I believe) that was the
quantity of interest.

> > > The manufacturer could set it up to be somewhere in between, but
> > > they would probably never do that because it would completely mystify some
> > > people.
>
> > Perhaps you do not realize that the hardware is quite different in
> > the &#4294967295;two cases.
>
> of course, If the hardware &#4294967295;weren't different the 2 would be identical.

No Jim: they would be similar. If they were identical, the hardware
would be the same out of logical necessity: this is the meaning of
identical. Similarity does not imply identity. In any case, the two
situations would be different because the input would be of a
different nature.

illywhacker;

> > Misrepresentations???? You think that calling this a pissing contest is a
> > misrepresentation?
> 
> Another misrepresentation. Your misrepresentations concerned what I
> said, not your "I can use bad words too" characterization of it. That
> would have been a mis-presentation or a mis-characterization, since it
> was not re-presenting anything. 

I see. What you are calling misrepresentation on my part appears to be really
misinterpretation on your part. Calling this a "pissing contest" was not
intended as an accusation that you had used "bad words". You apparently just
don't know what "pissing contest" means. But obviously you know how it works.



>As I say, you are becoming more and
> more troll-like. I had better check out your previous posts to see if
> you always behave like this.


Yes. You certainly had better do that. 


> 
> > > > >I knew I had
> > > > > not missed anything and that it was you that had failed to read
> > > > > carefully enough.
> > > > The issue of whether it is setup as a force or acceleration sensor is
> > > > immaterial.
> >
> > > If it is immaterial, why did you pay it so much attention in a
> > > previous post?
> >
> > You really need to work on your aim and try to be a little consistent. First you
> > whine that I didn't pay enough attention to the difference between the 2 types
> > of sensors and now you want to know why I am paying "so much attention" to the
> > difference?
> 
> You are using abusive language again, Jim. This might fly with your
> 'buddies', but it just seems a little juvenile and unintelligent
> anywhere else.  

What was abusive? Surely you can imagine that I might have called you something
a lot worse than inconsistent.


>You insisted that it was not force but acceleration
> (or rather, motion was the word you used I believe) that was the
> quantity of interest.

Yes, That would be a very concise misinterpretation of what I said.

-jim

On Feb 26, 4:41 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> I see. What you are calling misrepresentation on my part appears to be really
> misinterpretation on your part. Calling this a "pissing contest" was not
> intended as an accusation that you had used "bad words".

No, Jim. Your reading age is really down there with things like
'number of fingers on one hand' isn't it? You resorted to bad words,
Jim, perhaps because they make your 'buddies' guffaw. It's a
different story with adults though.

> >As I say, you are becoming more and
> > more troll-like. I had better check out your previous posts to see if
> > you always behave like this.
>
> Yes. You certainly had better do that.

I did. Apparently you are a car mechanic.

> What was abusive? Surely you can imagine that I might have called you something
> a lot worse than inconsistent.

How? Do you imagine that comparing me to, for example, body parts,
would be worse?

> >You insisted that it was not force but acceleration
> > (or rather, motion was the word you used I believe) that was the
> > quantity of interest.
>
> Yes, That would be a very concise misinterpretation of what I said.

"He doesn't want the integral of force. Force is just an abstract
concept here so is integration. Movement in space is what produces a
voltage."

illywhacker;

illywhacker wrote:
> 
> On Feb 26, 4:41 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> 
> > I see. What you are calling misrepresentation on my part appears to be really
> > misinterpretation on your part. Calling this a "pissing contest" was not
> > intended as an accusation that you had used "bad words".


> 
> No, Jim. Your reading age is really down there with things like
> 'number of fingers on one hand' isn't it?

I asked you a simple question. What misrepresentation did I make? Do you know
what a question is?


> You resorted to bad words,
> Jim, perhaps because they make your 'buddies' guffaw. It's a
> different story with adults though.
> 

OK. Let's suppose that is true. You still haven't explained what
misrepresentation you think I made.


> 
> "He doesn't want the integral of force. Force is just an abstract
> concept here so is integration. Movement in space is what produces a
> voltage."
> 

Yes , I said that because some idiot said "He wants the integral of Force". So I
says "no he doesn't". He says "yes he does" I says "no he doesn't" He says "yes
he does" ......

	See that is how a pissing contest works. Now what misrepresentation did I make?

-jim

On Feb 26, 6:00 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> illywhacker wrote:

> > No, Jim. Your reading age is really down there with things like
> > 'number of fingers on one hand' isn't it?

> > "He doesn't want the integral of force. Force is just an abstract
> > concept here so is integration. Movement in space is what produces a
> > voltage."
>
> Yes , I said that because some idiot said "He wants the integral of Force". So I
> says "no he doesn't". He says "yes he does" I says "no he doesn't" He says "yes
> he does" ......

No, Jim. I said 'Since the OP mentions "force", I assume it is the
latter rather than the former. Did I miss something?', and you said:

"No you didn't miss that. I was thinking he said acceleration but you
are correct he said force"

rather than the chain of contradictions you just asserted.

>    Now what misrepresentation did I make?

I just gave you one. Here's another: until this post, you have not
asked me a question, apart from a few hysterical rhetorical
screeches, yet you assert that you asked me what misrepresentation
you made:

"I asked you a simple question. What misrepresentation did I make?"

Look yourself for the others.

illywhacker;

illywhacker wrote:
> 
> On Feb 26, 6:00 pm, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > illywhacker wrote:
> 
> > > No, Jim. Your reading age is really down there with things like
> > > 'number of fingers on one hand' isn't it?
> 
> > > "He doesn't want the integral of force. Force is just an abstract
> > > concept here so is integration. Movement in space is what produces a
> > > voltage."
> >
> > Yes , I said that because some idiot said "He wants the integral of Force". So I
> > says "no he doesn't". He says "yes he does" I says "no he doesn't" He says "yes
> > he does" ......
> 
> No, Jim. I said 'Since the OP mentions "force", I assume it is the
> latter rather than the former. Did I miss something?', and you said:
> 
> "No you didn't miss that. I was thinking he said acceleration but you
> are correct he said force"
> 
> rather than the chain of contradictions you just asserted.


If I say this discussion has been nothing more than a chain of contradictions
how is that not an accurate assessment?


> 
> >    Now what misrepresentation did I make?
> 
> I just gave you one.


How does characterizing the discussion as a back and forth of  " Yes he did. No
he didn't. Yes he did. No he didn't. Yes he did. No he didn't..... " constitute
a misrepresentation? If that is not correct, what is?


> Here's another: until this post, you have not
> asked me a question,

Really? If I were to ask the question now, would I get an answer? 

> apart from a few hysterical rhetorical
> screeches, yet you assert that you asked me what misrepresentation
> you made:

 OK if you insist I have not asked let me ask now, Did you or did you not say I
was making misrepresentations? And if the answer is yes, what were those
misrepresentations?

-jim