Check if the system is linear











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












The system:
$$ T(x[n]) = ax[n] + bx[n-3] $$



For me it seems that the system is linear:



$$
begin{align}
T(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) & = a(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) + b(alpha_1x_1[n-3]+alpha_2x_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1(ax_1[n] + bx_1[n-3]) + alpha_2(ax_2[n] + bx_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1T(x_1[n])+alpha_1T(x_2[n])
end{align}$$



Thus it's linear, however in the presentation I got it says it's not linear. (without reasoning) Where I'm making the mistake (or maybe there is a mistake in the presentation)










share|improve this question
























  • Could you please share a document saying it is not linear? Maybe from the context we could get it
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    It could be hard as I don't have the access to the presentations. But it was in no context, just list of a few systems with the properties like linearity, time in-variance, causality, memorylessness, stability.
    – sswwqqaa
    Nov 28 at 19:35










  • Maybe you could talk to the source to double check there is no misunderstanding
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:53















up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












The system:
$$ T(x[n]) = ax[n] + bx[n-3] $$



For me it seems that the system is linear:



$$
begin{align}
T(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) & = a(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) + b(alpha_1x_1[n-3]+alpha_2x_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1(ax_1[n] + bx_1[n-3]) + alpha_2(ax_2[n] + bx_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1T(x_1[n])+alpha_1T(x_2[n])
end{align}$$



Thus it's linear, however in the presentation I got it says it's not linear. (without reasoning) Where I'm making the mistake (or maybe there is a mistake in the presentation)










share|improve this question
























  • Could you please share a document saying it is not linear? Maybe from the context we could get it
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    It could be hard as I don't have the access to the presentations. But it was in no context, just list of a few systems with the properties like linearity, time in-variance, causality, memorylessness, stability.
    – sswwqqaa
    Nov 28 at 19:35










  • Maybe you could talk to the source to double check there is no misunderstanding
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:53













up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1






1





The system:
$$ T(x[n]) = ax[n] + bx[n-3] $$



For me it seems that the system is linear:



$$
begin{align}
T(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) & = a(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) + b(alpha_1x_1[n-3]+alpha_2x_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1(ax_1[n] + bx_1[n-3]) + alpha_2(ax_2[n] + bx_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1T(x_1[n])+alpha_1T(x_2[n])
end{align}$$



Thus it's linear, however in the presentation I got it says it's not linear. (without reasoning) Where I'm making the mistake (or maybe there is a mistake in the presentation)










share|improve this question















The system:
$$ T(x[n]) = ax[n] + bx[n-3] $$



For me it seems that the system is linear:



$$
begin{align}
T(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) & = a(alpha_1x_1[n]+alpha_2x_2[n]) + b(alpha_1x_1[n-3]+alpha_2x_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1(ax_1[n] + bx_1[n-3]) + alpha_2(ax_2[n] + bx_2[n-3]) \
& = alpha_1T(x_1[n])+alpha_1T(x_2[n])
end{align}$$



Thus it's linear, however in the presentation I got it says it's not linear. (without reasoning) Where I'm making the mistake (or maybe there is a mistake in the presentation)







linear-systems system-identification






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 28 at 16:52









Peter K.

16.7k83058




16.7k83058










asked Nov 28 at 16:04









sswwqqaa

1305




1305












  • Could you please share a document saying it is not linear? Maybe from the context we could get it
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    It could be hard as I don't have the access to the presentations. But it was in no context, just list of a few systems with the properties like linearity, time in-variance, causality, memorylessness, stability.
    – sswwqqaa
    Nov 28 at 19:35










  • Maybe you could talk to the source to double check there is no misunderstanding
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:53


















  • Could you please share a document saying it is not linear? Maybe from the context we could get it
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    It could be hard as I don't have the access to the presentations. But it was in no context, just list of a few systems with the properties like linearity, time in-variance, causality, memorylessness, stability.
    – sswwqqaa
    Nov 28 at 19:35










  • Maybe you could talk to the source to double check there is no misunderstanding
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:53
















Could you please share a document saying it is not linear? Maybe from the context we could get it
– Laurent Duval
Nov 28 at 18:31




Could you please share a document saying it is not linear? Maybe from the context we could get it
– Laurent Duval
Nov 28 at 18:31




1




1




It could be hard as I don't have the access to the presentations. But it was in no context, just list of a few systems with the properties like linearity, time in-variance, causality, memorylessness, stability.
– sswwqqaa
Nov 28 at 19:35




It could be hard as I don't have the access to the presentations. But it was in no context, just list of a few systems with the properties like linearity, time in-variance, causality, memorylessness, stability.
– sswwqqaa
Nov 28 at 19:35












Maybe you could talk to the source to double check there is no misunderstanding
– Laurent Duval
Nov 28 at 20:53




Maybe you could talk to the source to double check there is no misunderstanding
– Laurent Duval
Nov 28 at 20:53










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










I believe there's either a mistake in the presentation or the presentation is using a different definition of linear.



For example, the system is linear in $x$ from a system perspective, but it's affine in $x[n]$ (and, therefore not linear) because of the $bx[n-3]$ offset.



On this site, we tend to go with the system definition rather than split hairs about linearity versus affine-ness.






share|improve this answer

















  • 4




    The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
    – Matt L.
    Nov 28 at 17:26






  • 1




    Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:29










  • @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
    – Peter K.
    Nov 28 at 18:43












  • I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:17






  • 1




    @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
    – Peter K.
    Nov 28 at 23:43


















up vote
4
down vote













[Note: it may happen that a teacher makes a oral mistake, that puzzles the audience. So here is an alternative explanation on this system being non-something]



This system is, as far as Peter K., Matt L. and I know, nicely linear. You already did the computations. With a little more work, among classical properties, it is also time-invariant, causal, stable.



The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless one of the constant $a$ or $b$ (including both) is zero (see for instance an extended conception of a memoryless system from What is a memory less system?).






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
    – Matt L.
    Nov 28 at 20:42






  • 1




    hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
    – Fat32
    Nov 29 at 9:12








  • 1




    Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 29 at 9:31


















up vote
2
down vote













A system $mathcal{T}$ is linear if its response to a weighted sum of two signals equals the weighted sum of its individual responses to those two input signals:



$$mathcal{T}big{alpha x_1+beta x_2big}=alphamathcal{T}big{x_1big}+betamathcal{T}big{x_2big}tag{1}$$



with arbitrary constants $alpha$ and $beta$, and arbitrary input sequences $x_1[n]$ and $x_2[n]$. A system $mathcal{T}$ satisfying $(1)$ is completely characterized by its impulse response $h[n]$, and its input-output relation can be formulated as a convolution of the input sequence with its impulse response:



$$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=sum_{k=-infty}^{infty}h[k]x[n-k]tag{2}$$



It is easily shown that the given system



$$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]tag{3}$$



satisfies $(1)$, and that it is characterized by the impulse response



$$h[n]=adelta[n]+bdelta[n-3]tag{4}$$



Clearly, its input-output relation $(3)$ can be written as a convolution sum $(2)$. Equivalently, the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its response is given by the multiplication of the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its input sequence and its transfer function $H(z)=mathcal{Z}{h[n]}$:



$$Y(z)=X(z)H(z)tag{5}$$



By contrast, an affine system does not satisfy $(1)$, and it cannot be characterized by an impulse response or, equivalently, by a transfer function. The given linear system $(3)$ could be made affine by adding a constant $c$ ($cneq 0$) to its output:



$$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]+ctag{6}$$



This input-output relation cannot be formulated in terms of a convolution $(2)$, and it can easily be checked that the system $(6)$ doesn't satisfy $(1)$. Such a system is not linear, since part of the output (the constant $c$) does not depend on the input signal $x[n]$.



There is no reasonable definition of linearity according to which the given system $(3)$ could be classified as being non-linear.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    This system is, as far as Peter K., Laurent, and I know, nicely linear. It is also time-invariant, causal, and stable. Indeed it's LTI with impulse response $h[n] = a delta[n] + b delta[n-3]$.



    The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless $a$ or $b$ is zero (see for instance an extended version from What is a memory less system?).






    share|improve this answer





















    • Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
      – Laurent Duval
      2 days ago










    • @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
      – Fat32
      2 days ago










    • @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
      – Fat32
      yesterday










    • Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
      – Laurent Duval
      yesterday











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "295"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdsp.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53727%2fcheck-if-the-system-is-linear%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    5
    down vote



    accepted










    I believe there's either a mistake in the presentation or the presentation is using a different definition of linear.



    For example, the system is linear in $x$ from a system perspective, but it's affine in $x[n]$ (and, therefore not linear) because of the $bx[n-3]$ offset.



    On this site, we tend to go with the system definition rather than split hairs about linearity versus affine-ness.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 4




      The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 17:26






    • 1




      Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 18:29










    • @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 18:43












    • I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 20:17






    • 1




      @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 23:43















    up vote
    5
    down vote



    accepted










    I believe there's either a mistake in the presentation or the presentation is using a different definition of linear.



    For example, the system is linear in $x$ from a system perspective, but it's affine in $x[n]$ (and, therefore not linear) because of the $bx[n-3]$ offset.



    On this site, we tend to go with the system definition rather than split hairs about linearity versus affine-ness.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 4




      The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 17:26






    • 1




      Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 18:29










    • @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 18:43












    • I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 20:17






    • 1




      @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 23:43













    up vote
    5
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    5
    down vote



    accepted






    I believe there's either a mistake in the presentation or the presentation is using a different definition of linear.



    For example, the system is linear in $x$ from a system perspective, but it's affine in $x[n]$ (and, therefore not linear) because of the $bx[n-3]$ offset.



    On this site, we tend to go with the system definition rather than split hairs about linearity versus affine-ness.






    share|improve this answer












    I believe there's either a mistake in the presentation or the presentation is using a different definition of linear.



    For example, the system is linear in $x$ from a system perspective, but it's affine in $x[n]$ (and, therefore not linear) because of the $bx[n-3]$ offset.



    On this site, we tend to go with the system definition rather than split hairs about linearity versus affine-ness.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 28 at 16:55









    Peter K.

    16.7k83058




    16.7k83058








    • 4




      The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 17:26






    • 1




      Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 18:29










    • @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 18:43












    • I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 20:17






    • 1




      @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 23:43














    • 4




      The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 17:26






    • 1




      Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 18:29










    • @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 18:43












    • I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 28 at 20:17






    • 1




      @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
      – Peter K.
      Nov 28 at 23:43








    4




    4




    The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
    – Matt L.
    Nov 28 at 17:26




    The system is just a two-tap FIR filter. So I wouldn't say it's affine. It would be affine (if one was willing to make that distinction) if it were something like $y[n]=ax[n]+b$, i.e., just adding a constant (like a non-zero initial condition). That would make it non-linear in a signals&systems context.
    – Matt L.
    Nov 28 at 17:26




    1




    1




    Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:29




    Indeed, I have never heard about "being affine" in the ordinal variable.
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 18:29












    @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
    – Peter K.
    Nov 28 at 18:43






    @MattL. Understood! I've just seen some mathematicians get their knickers in a twist over systems like in the original post. Without knowing the source of the claim that it's not linear, it's hard to rebut it.
    – Peter K.
    Nov 28 at 18:43














    I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:17




    I can't resist pedantry here :) maybe $a$ and $b$ are elements of a non-additive magma?
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 28 at 20:17




    1




    1




    @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
    – Peter K.
    Nov 28 at 23:43




    @LaurentDuval 😅😂🤣😜
    – Peter K.
    Nov 28 at 23:43










    up vote
    4
    down vote













    [Note: it may happen that a teacher makes a oral mistake, that puzzles the audience. So here is an alternative explanation on this system being non-something]



    This system is, as far as Peter K., Matt L. and I know, nicely linear. You already did the computations. With a little more work, among classical properties, it is also time-invariant, causal, stable.



    The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless one of the constant $a$ or $b$ (including both) is zero (see for instance an extended conception of a memoryless system from What is a memory less system?).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 20:42






    • 1




      hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
      – Fat32
      Nov 29 at 9:12








    • 1




      Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 29 at 9:31















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    [Note: it may happen that a teacher makes a oral mistake, that puzzles the audience. So here is an alternative explanation on this system being non-something]



    This system is, as far as Peter K., Matt L. and I know, nicely linear. You already did the computations. With a little more work, among classical properties, it is also time-invariant, causal, stable.



    The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless one of the constant $a$ or $b$ (including both) is zero (see for instance an extended conception of a memoryless system from What is a memory less system?).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 20:42






    • 1




      hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
      – Fat32
      Nov 29 at 9:12








    • 1




      Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 29 at 9:31













    up vote
    4
    down vote










    up vote
    4
    down vote









    [Note: it may happen that a teacher makes a oral mistake, that puzzles the audience. So here is an alternative explanation on this system being non-something]



    This system is, as far as Peter K., Matt L. and I know, nicely linear. You already did the computations. With a little more work, among classical properties, it is also time-invariant, causal, stable.



    The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless one of the constant $a$ or $b$ (including both) is zero (see for instance an extended conception of a memoryless system from What is a memory less system?).






    share|improve this answer














    [Note: it may happen that a teacher makes a oral mistake, that puzzles the audience. So here is an alternative explanation on this system being non-something]



    This system is, as far as Peter K., Matt L. and I know, nicely linear. You already did the computations. With a little more work, among classical properties, it is also time-invariant, causal, stable.



    The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless one of the constant $a$ or $b$ (including both) is zero (see for instance an extended conception of a memoryless system from What is a memory less system?).







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered Nov 28 at 19:44









    Laurent Duval

    16k32058




    16k32058








    • 2




      It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 20:42






    • 1




      hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
      – Fat32
      Nov 29 at 9:12








    • 1




      Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 29 at 9:31














    • 2




      It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
      – Matt L.
      Nov 28 at 20:42






    • 1




      hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
      – Fat32
      Nov 29 at 9:12








    • 1




      Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
      – Laurent Duval
      Nov 29 at 9:31








    2




    2




    It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
    – Matt L.
    Nov 28 at 20:42




    It's indeed linear and time-invariant, not affine. It would only be affine if in its output there were a constant term that is independent of the input signal, which is not the case here. It's just a plain FIR filter.
    – Matt L.
    Nov 28 at 20:42




    1




    1




    hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
    – Fat32
    Nov 29 at 9:12






    hmm let me put a (n almost) verbatim copy of your answer and wait to see if I get any upvotes :-)) and see if it is only you ;-)
    – Fat32
    Nov 29 at 9:12






    1




    1




    Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 29 at 9:31




    Go ahead and I'd suggest you to add the non-additive magma notion
    – Laurent Duval
    Nov 29 at 9:31










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    A system $mathcal{T}$ is linear if its response to a weighted sum of two signals equals the weighted sum of its individual responses to those two input signals:



    $$mathcal{T}big{alpha x_1+beta x_2big}=alphamathcal{T}big{x_1big}+betamathcal{T}big{x_2big}tag{1}$$



    with arbitrary constants $alpha$ and $beta$, and arbitrary input sequences $x_1[n]$ and $x_2[n]$. A system $mathcal{T}$ satisfying $(1)$ is completely characterized by its impulse response $h[n]$, and its input-output relation can be formulated as a convolution of the input sequence with its impulse response:



    $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=sum_{k=-infty}^{infty}h[k]x[n-k]tag{2}$$



    It is easily shown that the given system



    $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]tag{3}$$



    satisfies $(1)$, and that it is characterized by the impulse response



    $$h[n]=adelta[n]+bdelta[n-3]tag{4}$$



    Clearly, its input-output relation $(3)$ can be written as a convolution sum $(2)$. Equivalently, the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its response is given by the multiplication of the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its input sequence and its transfer function $H(z)=mathcal{Z}{h[n]}$:



    $$Y(z)=X(z)H(z)tag{5}$$



    By contrast, an affine system does not satisfy $(1)$, and it cannot be characterized by an impulse response or, equivalently, by a transfer function. The given linear system $(3)$ could be made affine by adding a constant $c$ ($cneq 0$) to its output:



    $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]+ctag{6}$$



    This input-output relation cannot be formulated in terms of a convolution $(2)$, and it can easily be checked that the system $(6)$ doesn't satisfy $(1)$. Such a system is not linear, since part of the output (the constant $c$) does not depend on the input signal $x[n]$.



    There is no reasonable definition of linearity according to which the given system $(3)$ could be classified as being non-linear.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      A system $mathcal{T}$ is linear if its response to a weighted sum of two signals equals the weighted sum of its individual responses to those two input signals:



      $$mathcal{T}big{alpha x_1+beta x_2big}=alphamathcal{T}big{x_1big}+betamathcal{T}big{x_2big}tag{1}$$



      with arbitrary constants $alpha$ and $beta$, and arbitrary input sequences $x_1[n]$ and $x_2[n]$. A system $mathcal{T}$ satisfying $(1)$ is completely characterized by its impulse response $h[n]$, and its input-output relation can be formulated as a convolution of the input sequence with its impulse response:



      $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=sum_{k=-infty}^{infty}h[k]x[n-k]tag{2}$$



      It is easily shown that the given system



      $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]tag{3}$$



      satisfies $(1)$, and that it is characterized by the impulse response



      $$h[n]=adelta[n]+bdelta[n-3]tag{4}$$



      Clearly, its input-output relation $(3)$ can be written as a convolution sum $(2)$. Equivalently, the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its response is given by the multiplication of the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its input sequence and its transfer function $H(z)=mathcal{Z}{h[n]}$:



      $$Y(z)=X(z)H(z)tag{5}$$



      By contrast, an affine system does not satisfy $(1)$, and it cannot be characterized by an impulse response or, equivalently, by a transfer function. The given linear system $(3)$ could be made affine by adding a constant $c$ ($cneq 0$) to its output:



      $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]+ctag{6}$$



      This input-output relation cannot be formulated in terms of a convolution $(2)$, and it can easily be checked that the system $(6)$ doesn't satisfy $(1)$. Such a system is not linear, since part of the output (the constant $c$) does not depend on the input signal $x[n]$.



      There is no reasonable definition of linearity according to which the given system $(3)$ could be classified as being non-linear.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        A system $mathcal{T}$ is linear if its response to a weighted sum of two signals equals the weighted sum of its individual responses to those two input signals:



        $$mathcal{T}big{alpha x_1+beta x_2big}=alphamathcal{T}big{x_1big}+betamathcal{T}big{x_2big}tag{1}$$



        with arbitrary constants $alpha$ and $beta$, and arbitrary input sequences $x_1[n]$ and $x_2[n]$. A system $mathcal{T}$ satisfying $(1)$ is completely characterized by its impulse response $h[n]$, and its input-output relation can be formulated as a convolution of the input sequence with its impulse response:



        $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=sum_{k=-infty}^{infty}h[k]x[n-k]tag{2}$$



        It is easily shown that the given system



        $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]tag{3}$$



        satisfies $(1)$, and that it is characterized by the impulse response



        $$h[n]=adelta[n]+bdelta[n-3]tag{4}$$



        Clearly, its input-output relation $(3)$ can be written as a convolution sum $(2)$. Equivalently, the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its response is given by the multiplication of the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its input sequence and its transfer function $H(z)=mathcal{Z}{h[n]}$:



        $$Y(z)=X(z)H(z)tag{5}$$



        By contrast, an affine system does not satisfy $(1)$, and it cannot be characterized by an impulse response or, equivalently, by a transfer function. The given linear system $(3)$ could be made affine by adding a constant $c$ ($cneq 0$) to its output:



        $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]+ctag{6}$$



        This input-output relation cannot be formulated in terms of a convolution $(2)$, and it can easily be checked that the system $(6)$ doesn't satisfy $(1)$. Such a system is not linear, since part of the output (the constant $c$) does not depend on the input signal $x[n]$.



        There is no reasonable definition of linearity according to which the given system $(3)$ could be classified as being non-linear.






        share|improve this answer












        A system $mathcal{T}$ is linear if its response to a weighted sum of two signals equals the weighted sum of its individual responses to those two input signals:



        $$mathcal{T}big{alpha x_1+beta x_2big}=alphamathcal{T}big{x_1big}+betamathcal{T}big{x_2big}tag{1}$$



        with arbitrary constants $alpha$ and $beta$, and arbitrary input sequences $x_1[n]$ and $x_2[n]$. A system $mathcal{T}$ satisfying $(1)$ is completely characterized by its impulse response $h[n]$, and its input-output relation can be formulated as a convolution of the input sequence with its impulse response:



        $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=sum_{k=-infty}^{infty}h[k]x[n-k]tag{2}$$



        It is easily shown that the given system



        $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]tag{3}$$



        satisfies $(1)$, and that it is characterized by the impulse response



        $$h[n]=adelta[n]+bdelta[n-3]tag{4}$$



        Clearly, its input-output relation $(3)$ can be written as a convolution sum $(2)$. Equivalently, the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its response is given by the multiplication of the $mathcal{Z}$-transform of its input sequence and its transfer function $H(z)=mathcal{Z}{h[n]}$:



        $$Y(z)=X(z)H(z)tag{5}$$



        By contrast, an affine system does not satisfy $(1)$, and it cannot be characterized by an impulse response or, equivalently, by a transfer function. The given linear system $(3)$ could be made affine by adding a constant $c$ ($cneq 0$) to its output:



        $$mathcal{T}big{xbig}=y[n]=ax[n]+bx[n-3]+ctag{6}$$



        This input-output relation cannot be formulated in terms of a convolution $(2)$, and it can easily be checked that the system $(6)$ doesn't satisfy $(1)$. Such a system is not linear, since part of the output (the constant $c$) does not depend on the input signal $x[n]$.



        There is no reasonable definition of linearity according to which the given system $(3)$ could be classified as being non-linear.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 28 at 21:32









        Matt L.

        48k13683




        48k13683






















            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            This system is, as far as Peter K., Laurent, and I know, nicely linear. It is also time-invariant, causal, and stable. Indeed it's LTI with impulse response $h[n] = a delta[n] + b delta[n-3]$.



            The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless $a$ or $b$ is zero (see for instance an extended version from What is a memory less system?).






            share|improve this answer





















            • Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
              – Laurent Duval
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
              – Fat32
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
              – Fat32
              yesterday










            • Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
              – Laurent Duval
              yesterday















            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            This system is, as far as Peter K., Laurent, and I know, nicely linear. It is also time-invariant, causal, and stable. Indeed it's LTI with impulse response $h[n] = a delta[n] + b delta[n-3]$.



            The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless $a$ or $b$ is zero (see for instance an extended version from What is a memory less system?).






            share|improve this answer





















            • Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
              – Laurent Duval
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
              – Fat32
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
              – Fat32
              yesterday










            • Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
              – Laurent Duval
              yesterday













            up vote
            -1
            down vote










            up vote
            -1
            down vote









            This system is, as far as Peter K., Laurent, and I know, nicely linear. It is also time-invariant, causal, and stable. Indeed it's LTI with impulse response $h[n] = a delta[n] + b delta[n-3]$.



            The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless $a$ or $b$ is zero (see for instance an extended version from What is a memory less system?).






            share|improve this answer












            This system is, as far as Peter K., Laurent, and I know, nicely linear. It is also time-invariant, causal, and stable. Indeed it's LTI with impulse response $h[n] = a delta[n] + b delta[n-3]$.



            The only basic property it does not possess is "to be memoryless", unless $a$ or $b$ is zero (see for instance an extended version from What is a memory less system?).







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Nov 29 at 9:09









            Fat32

            13.8k31128




            13.8k31128












            • Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
              – Laurent Duval
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
              – Fat32
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
              – Fat32
              yesterday










            • Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
              – Laurent Duval
              yesterday


















            • Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
              – Laurent Duval
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
              – Fat32
              2 days ago










            • @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
              – Fat32
              yesterday










            • Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
              – Laurent Duval
              yesterday
















            Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
            – Laurent Duval
            2 days ago




            Maybe you need another folk copying your answer to get the first vote
            – Laurent Duval
            2 days ago












            @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
            – Fat32
            2 days ago




            @LaurentDuval 12 hours after the post and zero upvotes ! this's a disaster ! I should have been quick to copy (before you) PeterK instead ;-))
            – Fat32
            2 days ago












            @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
            – Fat32
            yesterday




            @LaurentDuval you see my copy is downvoted, whereas your copy is upvoted ;-)) this is plain injustice !
            – Fat32
            yesterday












            Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
            – Laurent Duval
            yesterday




            Sometimes, less is more. Lo siento
            – Laurent Duval
            yesterday


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Signal Processing Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdsp.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53727%2fcheck-if-the-system-is-linear%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater