Semantics I do love them... Now follows a lecture from Wbahn to The Electrician on how he defined the zero frequency at the start of the paragraph, followed by the rebuttal that the pronoun was redefined in the last sentence and "it" indicates the real part...

My two cents worth is that it should be redefined... but just cause I've been banging my head up against a wall for two days, due to stuff not being redefined

 

Semantics I do love them... Now follows a lecture from Wbahn to The Electrician on how he defined the zero frequency at the start of the paragraph, followed by the rebuttal that the pronoun was redefined in the last sentence and "it" indicates the real part...

My two cents worth is that it should be redefined... but just cause I've been banging my head up against a wall for two days, due to stuff not being redefined

My technical writing professor taught that sometimes it's good to use the antecedent rather than the pronoun to avoid any possibility of ambiguity.

 

Don't you mean to say: "Only the real part is used because it is already known that the imaginary part will be zero at that frequency)"?

Yes. Thanks for catching that. I'll correct the post.

 

Semantics I do love them... Now follows a lecture from Wbahn to The Electrician on how he defined the zero frequency at the start of the paragraph, followed by the rebuttal that the pronoun was redefined in the last sentence and "it" indicates the real part...

My two cents worth is that it should be redefined... but just cause I've been banging my head up against a wall for two days, due to stuff not being redefined

His observation of my error was completely correct. The pronoun "it" DOES refer to the real part, and it shouldn't. I think when I got to the last half of the sentence I was thinking that the first part had been "The imaginary part isn't used because..."