What you have done here, in your usual jesuistic way, is substitute one field of discourse for another as suits your fancy. One may speak of a diode as an actual physical package you may hold in your hand, and solder into a circuit. One may also speak of the fundamental properties of a diode, as a mathematician would in defining it's properties. To a mathematician, (and this is whom you would ask in this discussion) a transister is two diodes close enough together for the quantum tunneling affect to take place, thereby rendering one of the diodes a controlling choke on the other diode's output. If you look at the math model, or you look at the blowup in your freshman engineering textbook, you will see that it is two diodes glued together. Anyone, even someone with as much weasel blood as you, can verify this in a few minutes in a library.
What you have done here is prove that you are a complete idiot. I wrote that something was something else in a sense (You apparently do not know what that means). The person to whom I wrote that replied that it was an "actuality" (his word) that a transistor was two diodes back-to-back. I replied that putting two diodes back-to-back did not make a transistor. I gave an actual example of soldering two diodes together, something that is done routinely every day in the construction of a bridge rectifier. You come back oblivious to the proper use of words and try to accuse me of following the "jesuistic way". Sir, what that points out is not my actions but rather your preoccupation with some deep seated resentment. Now get a life. I will not respond to such a blithering idiot. A junction transistor is "in a sense" two back-to-back transistors. And I quote you "One may speak of a diode as an actual physical package you may hold in your hand, and solder into a circuit. One may also speak of the fundamental properties of a diode, as a mathematician would in defining it's properties."
in a sense
adv : in some respects; "in a sense, language is like math" [syn: in a way]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University |