Question

Another piece of a priori knowledge that isn't.

Answer 1

\[f \left( t \right)=\lambda \exp(-\lambda (t-t_o)),t\ge t_0\]
\[f \left( t \right)=0,t<0 \]

Answer 2

I want to derive the follow:

\[R_{sys}(t)=R_1(t)+\int\limits_o^tf_1(\tau)R_3(t-\tau)d\tau\]

Answer 3

The first equation allows me to set \[t_o=0\]

Answer 4

This simplifies the function down to:
\[f \left( t \right)=\lambda \exp(-\lambda (t)),t\ge t_o=0\]

Answer 5

My question is I assume this is simply a general rule applied as it conveniently removes a term before the equation is used during the derivation, yes?

Answer 6

I guess it also means "any time in future after initial time" as well?

Answer 7

Your notation doesn't make sense.

Answer 8

Sure it does.

Answer 9

No, with every subscript you are coming up with a new function that hasn't been defined.

Answer 10

I couldn't find the latex for grouping functions.

Answer 11

The first equation I am given as one of the parts I need to use to get to the second equation. I am only looking for the rule for allowing me to use the form in the third equation as a simplification.

Answer 12

I have actually gone through and found the derivation for the second equation by using the third form where I remove

\[t_o\]

Answer 13

I am merely trying to sort out if my thinking for using that approach is correct. It seemed sensible as it removed a term from the jumble.