wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Correct. Frequency is the inverse of time by
> definition.
>
> f=1/t THEREFORE t=1/f very simple actually... One
> is the inverse of the other...



Frequency is defined as the inverse of time. Time is not defined
as inverse of frequency. Try to understand the difference.


> > To say time is the inverse of frequency is to
> say time
> > is the inverse of inverse of time, which is,
> of course,
> > to say time is time.
>
> That statement, of course is NONSENSICAL!



It's funny that everything you don't understand is nonsensical...



> Time is the inverse of frequency just like
> frequency is the inverse of time. A very SIMPLE
> math equation...See above...



Thanks for teaching me that. I'll try to memorize it....



> If one takes "time" as the dominant dimension,
> then one is thinking in time terms (past, present
> and future), but if one takes "frequency" as the
> dominant dimension, then one is thinking in
> frequency terms (higher and lower frequencies).




From a dimension analytical point of view frequency doesn't
even exist, time does.




> Therefore, I could as well say that:
>
> To say frequency is the inverse of time is to say
> frequency
> is the inverse of inverse of frequency, which is,
> of course,
> to say frequency is frequency!



You could say that, but then you'd be missing the point of
which of them is defined by the other. And that is what you
are doing all the time. (all the inverse of frequency, in case
you didn't understand what that meant.)



>
> It is a bit mind boggling, so I may not have
> explained it in the most accurate way!


It seems to be a little too mind bobbling for you.