(New page: For question 1, is omega_c > 0 the same as "there are no conditions set"?) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
For question 1, is omega_c > 0 the same as "there are no conditions set"? | For question 1, is omega_c > 0 the same as "there are no conditions set"? | ||
| + | :no, because it excludes <math>\omega_c=0</math>. The carrier frequency <math>\omega_c=0</math> could be equal to zero, in which case, the signal would simply be multiplied by one. Of course, one can then recover the signal! -pm | ||
| + | |||
| + | For question 1b), should <math class="inline">e^{-j(\omega_c+\theta_c)}</math> be <math class="inline">e^{-j(\omega_ct+\theta_c)}</math> ? | ||
| + | :Yes, you are right. The correction has been made. -pm | ||
| + | ---- | ||
Latest revision as of 09:04, 19 April 2011
For question 1, is omega_c > 0 the same as "there are no conditions set"?
- no, because it excludes $ \omega_c=0 $. The carrier frequency $ \omega_c=0 $ could be equal to zero, in which case, the signal would simply be multiplied by one. Of course, one can then recover the signal! -pm
For question 1b), should $ e^{-j(\omega_c+\theta_c)} $ be $ e^{-j(\omega_ct+\theta_c)} $ ?
- Yes, you are right. The correction has been made. -pm
