The polar plot of is the negative imaginary axis. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The polar plot of is the negative imaginary axis.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Two dimensional chart that plots the activity of a unit on the Y-axis versus the time on the X- axis:....

QA->What is a graph is plotted taking °C along the Y-axis and of K along the X-axis?....

QA->The oldest teak plantation in the world, Conolly"s plot is situated in the district of ?....

QA->The imaginary line tangential to the longitudinal curve of the bubble tube at its midpoint is known as :....

QA->Imaginary ailments (disease)....

MCQ->A rectangular plot has a concrete path running in the middle of the plot parallel to the breadth of the plot. The rest of the plot is used as a lawn, which has an area of 240 sq. m. If the width of the path is 3m and the length of the plot is greater than its breadth by 2m, what is the area of the rectangular plot? (in sq. m.)....

MCQ->Consider the following statements about polar plots Addition of a non-zero pole to a transfer function results in further rotation of polar plot through an angle of - 90° as ω → ∞Addition of a pole at the origin to a transfer function rotates the polar plot at zero and infinite frequencies by a further angle of - 90° Of the above statements:....

MCQ-> Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the follow. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.According to Popper, the statement "Scientific beliefs are universal in character" implies that....

MCQ->The polar plot of is the negative imaginary axis.....

MCQ-> DIRECTIONS for the following questions:These questions are based on the situation given below: A robot moves on a graph sheet with x and y-axes. The robot is moved by feeding it with a sequence of instructions. The different instructions that can be used in moving it, and their meanings are: Instruction Meaning GOTO(x,y) move to point with coordinates (x, y) no matter where you are currently WALKX(P) Move parallel to the x-axis through a distance of p, in the positive direction if p is positive, and in the negative direction if p is negative WALKY(P) Move parallel to the y-axis through a distance of p, in the positive direction if p is positive, and in the negative direction if p is negative.The robot reaches point (6, 6) when a sequence of three instructions is executed, the first of which is a GOTO(x, y) instruction, the second is WALKX(2) and the third is WALKY(4). What are the values of x and y?
....