4 ms·
As a mathematician it is just a lot of fuzzy rambling, until they have the actual definition. I really don’t know what an average person is supposed to take awa
by foxes 4y ago
As a mathematician it is just a lot of fuzzy rambling, until they have the actual definition. I really don’t know what an average person is supposed to take away, you can end up in some feedback loop, lol okay. Communicating maths to a wider audience you can still be correct but there is zero reason to make it fuzzy. It’s okay to use an analogy if there is something people can latch onto, carry it with them mentally, and then you slowly deform it into the correct statement, but you have to be careful to not be fuzzy.
If you are writing something just minimise the number of non informative sentences. They probably could have explained poles, planes, etc all in the same space instead of rambling. Cutting to the examples and then giving the definition would have been better.
- kaashif 4y agoYeah, as someone with a math degree, I already know what the right half-plane refers to, I already know what zeroes and poles are (in a complex analysis way, not a control theory way), and I am just befuddled. The article doesn't really seem to have much concrete content at all, and could be cut down by a lot. Which is an achievement considering how short it already is. Just cutting out this junk: > Again roughly speaking, zeros describe mathematically how a system reacts to some input in the short term, while poles describe how a system reacts in the long term. and similar waffle would be good. It's so vague as to be counter-productive. The conclusions in the article aren't easily drawn from the vague tools we're given, in my opinion. Maybe I'm just not the target audience, but I don't really understand who that is.