Course Text

Post by **goodwine** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:14 pm

Post any errors that you find in the printed version of the course text below. To aid in avoiding any repeats, please do it as follows:

In the subject put something like

"page xx, line yy"

then in the body of the post put the error. If it's near the bottom of the page put "page xx, line -yy," meaning the error is yy lines up from the bottom. Count equations as lines as well.

Points:

typos = 1 homework point
substantive errors = 10 homework points
really major errors = 10's of homework points

Obviously what constitutes the distinction between these three types of errors is a matter of degree. I'll use my best judgment to allocate points fairly.

Only the first person to post an error will receive any credit, so try not to repeat any others that have already been posted.

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:27 pm

page 133 line 6
you have an extra "of"

cbernhar · Post by **cbernhar** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:06 pm

On page 139, in the equation that begins:

det(A-lambda*I) = ......

The last part of the equation is

lambda^2 - lambda - 2 - 0

And should be

lambda^2 - lambda - 2 = 0

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:45 pm

this line reads, "a good guess may be assume." It should read, "a good guess may be to assume"

charri11 · Post by **charri11** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:51 pm

in reference to same equation previously mentioned, a negative sign was dropped in front of one of the lambdas.

Right now it reads: [matrix]=(1-lambda)*lambda -2=...
It should read: [matrix]=(1-lambda)*-lambda -2=...

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:55 pm

the line starts, "transposed an all elements", when it should be, "transposed and all elements"

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:07 pm

in the lines beginning with, "the eigenvector corresponding to" the subscript is 1 all three times, rather than changing 1,2,3

also for the eigenvector corresponding to lambda 3, a negative is mistakenly added to the first line of the matrix, causing the incorrect eigenvector [1 2 0] when it should be [1 -2 0]

chunkymonkey · Post by **chunkymonkey** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:37 pm

it currently reads "alpha_i = alpha_2 = .. = alpha_i = 0" I think the first one is supposed to be "alpha_1"

mmcdowe3 · Post by **mmcdowe3** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:46 pm

for equation 6.7

ξ_3 should be ξ_4 for the right hand side

benrollin · Post by **benrollin** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:46 pm

The line following the sentence "Since the eigenvectors are guaranteed to be linearly independent," should have 2 addition signs instead of being all multiplied together.

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:48 pm

In Example 6.6.5, it should say "omega=2" (the solution is correct, but above that it states "omega=1")

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:45 pm

"goes" should be "go" I think because it refers to "the following to examples"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:46 pm

You have an extra period.
"associated with lambda=1.."

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:47 pm

"algebraic multiplicity two" should probably be "algebraic multiplicity of two"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:48 pm

"non-repeated ed eigenvalues"
take out "ed"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:50 pm

This sentence is really confusing. One thing about it that should be changed is that "each the terms" should be changed to "each of the terms"

chunkymonkey · Post by **chunkymonkey** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:56 pm

the equation currently reads ξdot = aξ and I believe the 'a' should be a capital 'A'

ctalley1 · Post by **ctalley1** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:15 pm

line 19: the 'to' in "we may to proceed" doesn't make grammatical sense.

line 20: the second "c_1" should be "c_n".

line 22: the second "c_1" should be "c_n".

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:14 pm

Reads "To compute the eigenvalue associated with a particular eigenvalue"
the first "eigenvalue" should be changed to "eigenvector"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:19 pm

there should be some sort of punctuation after
"Definition 6.5.5 Hermitian Matrix"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:21 pm

Reads "This should be obviously expected"
Should read" This obviously should be expected"

mroemer1 · Post by **mroemer1** » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:39 pm

I think there should be another e^t after k_2

mroemer1 · Post by **mroemer1** » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:42 pm

I think there should also be an e^t in front of the second bracket...e^t([1;0]sin 2t+[0;-1]cos 2t)

mroemer1 · Post by **mroemer1** » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:44 pm

"and an simple calculation" should be changed to "a"

jcorona · Post by **jcorona** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:55 pm

Page 104, line 2, the equation should be a solution of the form x_p. It currently reads x_p double dot.

chunkymonkey · Post by **chunkymonkey** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:58 pm

the second equation currently reads
mxdoubledot_2 + (k_2+k_3)x_2 - k_3x_2 = 0.

The equation should read mxdoubledot_2 + (k_2+k_3)x_2 - k_3x_1 = 0. the second x should be x_1 not x_2

ctalley1 · Post by **ctalley1** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm

In Equation 7.1,

Neither 'm' is subscripted. I believe they should be m_1 and m_2.

mmcdowe3 · Post by **mmcdowe3** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:30 pm

lambda = 2 is an eigenvalue with algebraic multiplicity of 3, not 4

mmcdowe3 · Post by **mmcdowe3** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:02 pm

the 1 for the eigenvector should be a superscript and not a subscript.

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:20 pm

on page 154, the paragraph immediately following equation 6.23 starts "So, lambda=2" but should be "So, lambda=-2"

towards the bottom of page 155, when you equate the coefficients of the powers of t, for the t0 equation lambda should only multiply Xi2 not (Xi2 +Xi1), so it needs to be moved inside the () as a coefficient of Xi2 only.

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:28 pm

the sentence immediately following eqn 6.27 says "since Xi-dot= At must hold for all t." I believe that this should be Xi-dot=A*Xi(t)

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:36 pm

at the beginning of Theorem 6.7.13: "lambda-i and eigenvector of A" should say eigenvalue instead

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:40 pm

Reads "The goal is to obviously construct"
should read "The goal is obviously to construct"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:43 pm

line -7: all coeff are m-2 in equation, but middle one SHOULD be m-3

line -12: each term should be divided by a factorial based on power of t

charri11 · Post by **charri11** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:41 pm

when listing the sine and cosine terms with their relation to example 6.10.3, the last of them says "sine term, first equation==> ...". This should actually say "cosine term, second equation==> ...". The series listed next to it is correct though. It's just labeled wrong.

jwalker9008 · Post by **jwalker9008** » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:44 pm

In the first equation of Examply 6.10.3, there is a "xi2" term in the second Xi vector, when it should be the actual Greek letter Xi.

chunkymonkey · Post by **chunkymonkey** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:56 am

The sentence currently reads: "There are two slight complications or variations that are necessary distinguish the approach..."

It should read: "There are two slight complications or variations that are necessary 'to' distinguish the approach..."

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:58 am

six lines from the bottom

"Sine term, first equation" should read "cosine term, second equation"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:23 pm

reads: "vector in generalized eigenspace of lambda-i"
should read: "vector in THE generalized eigenspace of lambda-i"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:26 pm

the first row of the matrix should have a "t" instead of a "tau"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:52 pm

There's some extra writing in the margin. I don't know if that's just from printing or what's going on but you might want to check that out.

jcorona · Post by **jcorona** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:46 pm

Page 234, the equation is missing for problem 8.6

eguilbea · Post by **eguilbea** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:32 am

bottom of page 192: "untransforming it at the end is not to great" ----should be "too great"
last line of page 198: transform is a repeated word.

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:20 pm

"it" should be omitted in : "then it whether or not the impulse should be included in the integral would be ambiguous"

chunkymonkey · Post by **chunkymonkey** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:35 pm

It currently reads "Since the impulse has zero width, if the lower limit were simply 0, then 'it' whether or not the impulse is included in the integral..."

The 'it' should not be there.

pranade · Post by **pranade** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:10 pm

The omega should be a 2 instead of 1. The answer that follows is correct.

pranade · Post by **pranade** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:13 pm

Just kidding about the answer being correct. I meant that the omega is correctly 2 in the answer. Somebody mentioned it earlier, but it's missing an e^t term after the k2.

jcorona · Post by **jcorona** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:55 pm

Page 186 in problem 7.1, number 4 has "??" where it should have a number to reference to.

bcastel1 · Post by **bcastel1** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:22 pm

when discussing E(t) =... There is an extra '+' sign after the c3 term before it is reduced.

bcastel1 · Post by **bcastel1** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:23 pm

same thing, E(t), before being reduced, has an extra '+' sign on the end of the equation

bcastel1 · Post by **bcastel1** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:24 pm

in the 2nd term, c1 should be c2

pranade · Post by **pranade** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:34 pm

I think the step function should be x'' + 25x = t, 0<=t<1. In the book there is an extra 't' instead of a '0'.

fruitloop · Post by **fruitloop** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:18 am

The current inverse Laplace transform gives
L^-1 ( 1/2 (1 - e^-pi*s)(1/s(s+2))) = 1/2 [ (1- e^...]

I believe the '1/2' on the right side of the above equation should be a '1/4,' since the 1/(s(s+2)) term must be multiplied by 2 in order to use the appropriate Laplace transform of '2/(s(s+2)) --> 1-e^(-2t).' Multiplying that term by 2 means the overall term should be divided by two, making the right side of the above equation:

= 1/4 [ (1-e^-2t)1(t) - (1 - e^-2(t-pi) ) 1(t-pi)].

benrollin · Post by **benrollin** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:16 am

You have a term (7*pi)/s that is in error (i think), appearing twice, once in line 4, and once in line 5 on page 212. The (7*pi)/s should be (7*pi)/2. This term appears to have propagated through from your earlier work as well. The same mistake appears on the previous page in the equation directly above the line that reads: "3. The product in the next term can be expanded as", and again on the same page on the 3rd to last line. So it should have appeared a total of four times... Sorry if this is in fact not an error, but I'm pretty certain that it is.

djohnso8 · Post by **djohnso8** » Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:15 pm

the s inside the step function after the equal sign should be a 2

i.e. --> L^-1 .... = 11(t - 7*pi/2)*( .........

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:22 pm

the word "the" is repeated: "the following example illustrates the the efficacy"

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:35 pm

in Def 9.5.3, the line that ends, "the impulse response is given by", should say the step response not the impulse response

mroemer1 · Post by **mroemer1** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:36 pm

p 214 line 2: I think the A matrix (0 1 0 0...) should be multiplied by the eigenvectors (zeta1, zeta2, zeta3, zeta4)
p 222 line 16: I think the minus sign was dropped in front of the force d(t) from the equation on line 13 to line 16
p 223 line -2: In the equation E(s) = theta_d(s) - theta(t) should be theta(s)
p 224 line 5: the equation for theta(s) = (kp(thetad)s-mgl)/(s(Js^2+kp)) which it says is the same as equation 9.5, but on p 242 line 2 the equation for theta(s) is missing the s term in the denominator, which I think it should have in order to arrive at equation 9.6 given the appropriate assumptions.

cplagema · Post by **cplagema** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:32 am

the colon ":" is missing after "Hint"

lawnoy · Post by **lawnoy** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:27 pm

For Figure 9.21 on page 268, I believe when the pole moves up and to the left, damping should increase, instead of staying constant. When the pole moves straight up, damping should stay constant instead of decreasing.

Waylon Chen

lawnoy · Post by **lawnoy** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:40 pm

[quote="lawnoy"]For Figure 9.21 on page 268, I believe when the pole moves up and to the left, damping should increase, instead of staying constant. When the pole moves straight up, damping should stay constant instead of decreasing.

Waylon Chen[/quote]

Sorry, I forgot to include the page number and relevant line number.

Waylon Chen

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:45 am

'A plot of O it versus...'

"it" shouldn't be there.

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:50 am

The first sentence of the last paragraph has "instead" included twice, and I think the second one should be taken out.

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:01 pm

"to" should be "two"

cplagema · Post by **cplagema** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:42 pm

the "if" is a mistake in this sentence:
"Hence if the effects...are as follows"
versus
"Hence the effect... are as follows"

cplagema · Post by **cplagema** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:40 pm

the word "zero" is repeated twice by accident
Problem 9.4
"Match the plots of the pole and zero zero locations"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:08 pm

line -13:
reads: "the block diagram has been modified by switching moving the branch point"
should read: "the block diagram has been modified by moving the branch point"
line -14:
reads: "The the block containing ..."
should read: "The block containing..."

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:10 pm

reads: "In such a case, then the equation of motion is"
should read: "In such a case, the equation of motion is"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:12 pm

reads: "the particular solution is the same the proportional control case"
should read: "the particular solution is the same as in the proportional control case"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:14 pm

reads: "will contain a term of the form c0, it i.e.,"
should read: "will contain a term of the form c0, i.e.,"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:16 pm

There are several ways the this one could be fixed. The error is at the very top of the page where it says
"We may conclude from that, in general, if a transfer function..."
possibly change to
"We may conclude from this that, in general, if a transfer function..."
or
"We may conclude that, in general, if a transfer function..."

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:20 pm

Line 3:
the equation inside the inverse laplace transform should be multiplied by 1/s, to be consistent with the equation immediately above it.

Line -5: two errors:
reads: "blow up" since, the solution depends..."
should read: "blow up" since the solution depends..."

reads: "as well as possibly any initial conditions."
should read: "as well as any possible initial conditions."

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:22 pm

reads: "where r = 10, 1, -1, and =10"
should read: "where r = 10, 1, -1, and -10"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:23 pm

the subscript "r" should be "R"

mturne10 · Post by **mturne10** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:45 pm

The last part of the paragraph currently reads "...achieved by d.c. servor motors."

I believe it should be changed to "...achieved by d.c. servo motors."

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:18 pm

The block diagrams should subtract mgl/s instead of adding it

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:55 pm

in Example 9.7.8, the r values listed do not match those shown in Figure 9.3.4

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:56 am

in statement 3, "to satisfy either a rise time or a overshoot specification" should say "an overshoot specification"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:26 pm

"satisfied" should be "satisifies"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:26 pm

[quote="alibardi"]"satisfied" should be "satisifies"[/quote]
just kidding this is actually page 289

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:27 pm

in Rule 9.8.5 you have "then At k=0" and "at" shouldn't be capitalized

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 pm

"Referring to Figure 9.46 with is the root..."
"with" should be "which"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:31 pm

The sentence starting with "If we desire to determine whether or not a point,..." sounds like you're missing part of it.

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:35 pm

I think the equation for <G(s) should include k-hat, because in class you said that it depends on whether k is greater than or less than zero. But you also said we are assuming that k is always greater than zero for now, which is maybe why it's not included.

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:15 pm

the last words on the page should be "Figure 9.59" (not "Figure 9.8.22")

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:57 am

"Rule 9.8.9 gives and angle of the asymptote" -----> "Rule 9.8.9 gives THE angle of the asymptote"

vcarpeni · Post by **vcarpeni** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:38 pm

In line 3 of example 8.5.4:
- "a belt that driven by a pulley" should be either "a belt driven by a pulley" or "a belt that is driven by a pulley"
- "Figure 8.11 and 8.12" should be "Figures 8.11 and 8.12"

vcarpeni · Post by **vcarpeni** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:09 pm

In the first line under Figures 8.22 and 8.23, "it it" should be "it is"

bcastel1 · Post by **bcastel1** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:26 pm

"from equation 9.3 into the.." should be equation 9.2

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:24 pm

"From Equation 9.18, the partial fraction expansion is"

Equation 9.18 has to do with the inverse Laplace of the transfer function. The partial fraction expansion is hidden in the algebra above it.

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:26 pm

The step response Y(s) should be Y_1(s) to match up with its transfer function G_1(s)

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:30 pm

Under the limit, the down arrow should be going right, so that r approaches zero.

bcastel1 · Post by **bcastel1** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:31 pm

typo: "...this previously in example 9.5.12)." Obviously the ')' should not be there

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:04 pm

The parenthesis just after the 1/2s term should be after the second (Xd - X) term.

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:09 pm

"would be just to substitute in into G"

Remove the "in"

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:46 pm

"there asymptotes" should be "their asymptotes"

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:51 pm

"The first rule will will apply..." Delete the repeated word

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:40 am

"...other than simply providing an alternative representation Equation 9.5, the block diagram..."
There should be an "of" between representation and Equation.

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:41 am

"May" should be "Many"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:41 am

"Assuming" should be "Assume"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:43 am

This is in the 2nd line of the 3rd paragraph in case I counted lines wrong.
"This is rocket is..." You should take out the first "is"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:46 am

line 10: "precede" should be "proceed"
line 19: "...because the Equation 9.2..." You don't need "the"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:47 am

"finally" should be capitalized right after "Example 9.2.7"

lawnoy · Post by **lawnoy** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:56 am

For the equation right under the title 9.7 Response of a Second Order System, the omega-n term in the canonical form should be squared.

Waylon Chen, 901521460

charri11 · Post by **charri11** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:24 pm

For example 9.8.7 you have the zero to equal s=-3, however in the figure (Figure 9.46) defining the root locus plot on the next page, the zero appears at -2.

It would probably be easier to just change the example to say: 1+ k*(s+2)/[(s+4)(s+5)(s^2+2s+3)] instead of
1+ k*(s+3)/[(s+4)(s+5)(s^2+2s+3)].

Please also give credit (if any is given) to Christine Roetzel.

sdolanob · Post by **sdolanob** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:29 am

it reads: "the force on mass 2 is" and should read "the force on mass 1 is" i believe since the pulley is connected to mass 1, not mass 2 in the example

AL089 · Post by **AL089** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:51 pm

"the region on the complex plan". Plan should be "plane"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:40 pm

going on to page 288,

"the easiest thing to would be just to substitute in into G."
need to delete the "in" or add something to substitute after "in" and before "into"

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:47 pm

"combined, obviously, results in an approximate manner..."
A lot of things could fix this, but I don't know exactly what you want.
"A lag and a lead compensator combined, obviously, results in..."
"Combining these, obviously, results in..."

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:04 am

It says "all the solutions to equation 9.15 are in the right half plane," when in fact there were no sign changes in the first column of the routh array, so all the solutions are in the LEFT half plane.

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:08 pm

reads, "Because of the manner in which the logarithmic scale presents the date,"
"date" should be "data"

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:10 pm

the line starts, "for omega > 20." it should be "for omega > 0.1"

tmo3290 · Post by **tmo3290** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:12 pm

the end of the line says "and the sum the the exact". It should be "and the sum and the exact"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:56 am

"The notation may be bit abstract.." should be "The notation may be a bit abstract"

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:37 pm

In question 9.22, you have a low pass filter but in the problem statement, you label the resistor and the capacitor with a subscript of HP when in the picture they are LP and you say it's low pass.

mmcdowe3 · Post by **mmcdowe3** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:00 pm

there is a parenthesis missing after i*omega

tjohns18 · Post by **tjohns18** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:08 am

The second line of the calculation incorrectly collects the free multiplied numbers.
in the numerator, 2 x 3 x 2 = 12
in the denominator, 5 x 5 = 25

the book collects these terms as a total 6/5, when it is in fact 12/25

pranade · Post by **pranade** » Tue May 04, 2010 2:23 pm

Maybe should say "unity feedback" instead of "unit feedback"?

alibardi · Post by **alibardi** » Wed May 05, 2010 8:07 pm

For the 2nd matrix on this page, it says that matrix is (A-lambda*I) but then you only subtract lambda from the first row. All the 2's on the diagonal should be 1's I think, since I'm pretty sure they should be 2-lambda which is 2-1=1.

cnorton@nd.edu · Post by **cnorton@nd.edu** » Wed May 05, 2010 8:32 pm

the equation after 6.7
on the last line of the matrix, E2 should be multiplied by b4/m2 not b2/m2

tpurcell · Post by **tpurcell** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:21 pm

Equation should read Y/R not R/Y

tpurcell · Post by **tpurcell** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:24 pm

Text says the plot is of 8/(s^2+16) whereas figure says it is 4/(s^2+16)