I Equation 16: Missing dt Term Without f(t)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theycallmevirgo
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Equation 16 presents a dt term without an accompanying f(t), raising questions about its validity. The discussion suggests that this could indicate an integral with respect to time, which is common in dynamic systems where the range of integration is often omitted. Participants note that in control systems, the focus is on behavior rather than specific operating points, allowing for simplified notation. There is a debate on whether assuming f(t) equals 1 is valid, as the result may not be neutral when computed. The notation's clarity and context are emphasized as crucial for understanding the equation's implications.
theycallmevirgo
Messages
108
Reaction score
25
TL;DR
How can an equation contain a time derivative without any f(t)?
In equation 16 they seem to have a dt term without f(t). Am I missing something?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211013-131215_ReadEra.jpg
    Screenshot_20211013-131215_ReadEra.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 137
Physics news on Phys.org
reckon ##dt## is just supposed to be some time interval, maybe smallish (can't say without seeing the book)
 
  • Like
Likes theycallmevirgo and PeroK
theycallmevirgo said:
Summary:: How can an equation contain a time derivative without any f(t)?

In equation 16 they seem to have a dt term without f(t). Am I missing something?
Context is everything here. It looks more like there's an integral with respect to time in there, but it's highly contextual notation.
 
  • Like
Likes theycallmevirgo and ergospherical
PeroK said:
Context is everything here. It looks more like there's an integral with respect to time in there, but it's highly contextual notation.
fwiw I'm assuming the formula in the picture is the same one as (or a variation of) this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller#Controller_theory

the bit in the brackets in the picture corresponding to ##\int e(\tau) d\tau## on the wiki version
 
  • Like
Likes theycallmevirgo, DaveE and PeroK
Well, I guess if you don't need to put the range on an integral, why bother with the integral sign at all?
 
  • Like
Likes theycallmevirgo
PeroK said:
Well, I guess if you don't need to put the range on an integral, why bother with the integral sign at all?
Yes, I agree their notation sucks.
In dynamic systems (control systems) it is common to leave the range out, with an assumption it's "all relevant history". This is because most of the interest is in the behavior (stability, etc.), not the actual operating points. One of the cheats you get from linear systems, the integral can be treated like an operator; it might not matter what the actual value is.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes theycallmevirgo and PeroK
Don't we just assume ## f(t)== 1 ##? I mean, we have ##\int dt =t ##
 
WWGD said:
Don't we just assume ## f(t)== 1 ##? I mean, we have ##\int dt =t ##
That's exactly what I thought, originally. But if so, why include it at all?
 
theycallmevirgo said:
That's exactly what I thought, originally. But if so, why include it at all?
Because the result is not necessarily " neutral" when computed. You will not just ( necessarily) get a 1 multiplying . Edit: On my phone, will give you more thorough answer tmw when I get to my pc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K