Your definition is very clear,and brief.But if you could show it diagramatically,it would hav been better.-ananya Panja
Your definitions seem good to me, both correct and to the point. -Christen Juzeszyn
This is a complete and correct definition. However, I would have worded it differently. The way it is currently is a little confusing regarding the shifted output. I would have said "...yields the same result as time shifting the output signal by the same time shift.", but this definition is nonetheless correct and quite usable. -Zachary Curosh
This is a good definition for a time-variant/invariant system but it was a little confusing on the first read-through. -Aishwar Sabesan
I think definition of a time variant and invariant is very solid. -- Sangwan Han
The definitions are short, to the point, and correct, though I probably would have given "the output" an actual name (such as y(t) (or y[n])) for sake of clarity. -Brian Thomas
Your definition is correct but I would agree with adding a name for the response. - Miles Whittaker
This definition works, but it would be hard for someone to actually work out a problem based on this worded definition. It is also a bit ambiguous in its reference to the system, he just uses the word "response" and expects that we know the inputs were put into the system yielding outputs, but he names only the inputs. --Tyler Houlihan
I like your definition, but some examples would be great. -- Ben Moeller
