Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey

    • Join Date: Jun 2016
    • Posts: 127
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #1

    convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each term

    "To find the inverse Laplace transform of a complicated function, we can convert the function to a sum of simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transform of each term."

    The sentence is confusing. I cannot understand the part "for which". What for which modifies? Why should we use it as it to be instead of simply using "which" ? What is the role of "for" here?

    Source: Control Systems Engineering by Norman S. Nise.

    Thank you.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Dec 2015
    • Posts: 3,824
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #2

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    For which refers to "simpler terms". The author could have written "we can convert the function to a sum of simpler terms whose Laplace transforms we know."
    I am not a teacher.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey

    • Join Date: Jun 2016
    • Posts: 127
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #3

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    Quote Originally Posted by GoesStation View Post
    For which refers to "simpler terms". The author could have written "we can convert the function to a sum of simpler terms whose Laplace transforms we know."
    What if we omit "for" in the original as "To find the inverse Laplace transform of a complicated function, we can convert the function to a sum of simpler terms which we know the Laplace transform of each term?

    Thank you.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Apr 2009
    • Posts: 11,820
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #4

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    No, you can't omit "for."

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey

    • Join Date: Jun 2016
    • Posts: 127
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #5

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    What about because instead of for which: "To find the inverse Laplace transform of a complicated function, we can convert the function to a sum of simpler terms because we know the Laplace transform of each term?

    Thank you.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Dec 2015
    • Posts: 3,824
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #6

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    That's grammatically correct but it changes the meaning. Here's what the original sentence means in outline form.

    To find the inverse Laplace transform of a complicated function:
    1) Find a set of simpler terms. We have to know the Laplace transform of each term.
    2) Convert the function to a sum of these simpler terms.
    I am not a teacher.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey

    • Join Date: Jun 2016
    • Posts: 127
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #7

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    Quote Originally Posted by GoesStation View Post
    That's grammatically correct but it changes the meaning. Here's what the original sentence means in outline form.
    To find the inverse Laplace transform of a complicated function:
    1) Find a set of simpler terms. We have to know the Laplace transform of each term.
    2) Convert the function to a sum of these simpler terms.

    I can get the meaning but the function of "for" here is still a secret for me

    Thank you.

  1. emsr2d2's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 34,305
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #8

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    Do you understand "for which" in the following?

    A: I have seen two plants I like. There are two different names for one of them. Which plant should I buy?
    B: Buy the one for which there are two names. It sounds more interesting!

    A: There are three combination-locked boxes in that room. I want to open all of them.
    B: What's the problem? Open them!
    A: I can't. I only have the combination for two of them.
    B: Then open the two boxes for which you know the combination.
    Remember - if you don't use correct capitalisation, punctuation and spacing, anything you write will be incorrect.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey

    • Join Date: Jun 2016
    • Posts: 127
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #9

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    Quote Originally Posted by emsr2d2 View Post
    Do you understand "for which" in the following?

    A: I have seen two plants I like. There are two different names for one of them. Which plant should I buy?
    B: Buy the one for which there are two names. It sounds more interesting!

    A: There are three combination-locked boxes in that room. I want to open all of them.
    B: What's the problem? Open them!
    A: I can't. I only have the combination for two of them.
    B: Then open the two boxes for which you know the combination.
    Yes, I understand them but can we change, for example, last one as "Then open the two boxes which you know the combination for" ?

    Thank you.

  2. emsr2d2's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 34,305
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #10

    Re: convert function simpler terms for which we know the Laplace transforms of each t

    Yes, you can.
    Remember - if you don't use correct capitalisation, punctuation and spacing, anything you write will be incorrect.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. transforms lhs to rhs
    By anhnha in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29-Jan-2016, 20:06
  2. Ranks ... in terms of / is ranked ... in term of
    By farhad_persona in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14-Dec-2013, 19:21
  3. simpler or more simple?
    By torpes in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27-May-2010, 22:21
  4. one simpler question
    By Ripper in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-Mar-2010, 08:51
  5. How to put it simpler
    By Archie in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-Jul-2005, 07:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •