I think he did it on purpose...:smile:
Alex
You are right Alex...
In fact this is the first definition I was taught when I was a little kid at school (I think it is the same everywhere). All students and I in my class didn’t complain. At this age, the universe we perceive in geometry was rather planar and we were glad to draw straight lines that don’t intersect and say... Hey here are more parallel lines :grin:
Now after I knew that the first definition I heard of is wrong...
(1)
Should I deduce my teachers were ignorant or liars?
Of course not, because if I would teach basic geometry to little kids now I will start with this wrong definition because it represents the right first step for them to learn geometry.
(2)
On the other hand, I can’t deny that this wrong definition was the base of my actual right knowledge.
So, should I keep this definition in my mind as a scientific truth or just as a souvenir?
To me in least, it is a mere souvenir to remind me the simple mind I had when I was a kid
To be continued to the next stage... unless someone doesn’t agree that the definition of interest is wrong :roll:
Note:
As I said earlier, the object of this logical discussion will lead us to a great and obvious conclusion that contradicts the belief of billions on earth mainly their scholars. That is why I wish that every reader who contributes to the discussion be based on his own logic and point out anything that doesn’t look right to him.
---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------
...the input signal is connected to the inverting terminal.
Charming... I mean... the connection of a voltage source directly to the inverting input of an opamp...
Unless 'input signal' means a current source :roll: