In Reply to: RE: All that is not a clear, concise definition... posted by Tre' on August 16, 2016 at 21:16:30:
The problem with what you present is that in the context of a real-world device you can not unambiguously define "linear" w/o also introducing an arbitrarily chosen measure of linearity "goodness" such as absolute deviation from perfect, % distortion etc. Words such as "substantial", "most linear" (implying imperfect absolute linearity), and "approximately" are open to interpretation and thus not ideal as part of a definition although they may useful as parts of descriptions and characteristics.
As an example of the inherent ambiguity in the stuff you cited, consider the plot used to graphically demonstrate "linearity". What's to prevent someone from extending the "linear" region by +/-10%? To my eye everything is still linear. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't - who's correct ? How about to the point just before the line begins to curve? But where exactly does the line begin to curve? How far away from that curve point must one be to remain in the linear region? Without an agreement on what constitutes acceptable deviation from perfect linearity, a measure of linearity goodness, you might pick one point and I might pick another. IOW, the plot and accompanying text are ambiguous and ambiguity really isn't compatible with a definition.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: All that is not a clear, concise definition... - Steve O 22:19:26 08/16/16 (15)
- RE: All that is not a clear, concise definition... - Tre' 08:51:54 08/17/16 (0)
- Totally agree ... - Naz 05:42:28 08/17/16 (13)
- RE: Totally agree ... - PakProtector 09:06:43 08/17/16 (12)
- RE: Totally agree ... - Jim McShane 17:15:17 08/17/16 (11)
- LOL... - PakProtector 18:02:07 08/17/16 (10)
- RE: LOL... - Triode_Kingdom 23:07:48 08/17/16 (9)
- RE: LOL... - dave slagle 06:56:32 08/18/16 (8)
- RE: LOL... - PakProtector 13:07:19 08/18/16 (7)
- RE: LOL... - dave slagle 13:43:32 08/18/16 (6)
- RE: LOL... - Tre' 15:56:11 08/18/16 (5)
- RE: LOL... - dave slagle 16:47:07 08/18/16 (4)
- RE: LOL... - Tre' 17:34:13 08/18/16 (3)
- RE: LOL... - dave slagle 18:24:27 08/18/16 (2)
- Soft... - PakProtector 17:23:44 08/23/16 (0)
- RE: LOL... - Tre' 18:43:12 08/18/16 (0)