fiddled filter design

Power of two FT's were not all that slow in the 1980's. All the main players had some variant of the 2,4 split radix algorithm by then although it wasn't published until I think 1984 (although ISTR we now know someone had published it in 1968 but no-one had noticed). Jodrell Bank could do lengths of the form 2^n.3^p.5^q.r (where r was a prime) by then. We could do 1024x1024 images at a push (512^2 was routine) and the VLA could do 2048^2 with some discomfort for other users.

What made big 2D FFTs slow back then was paging and transposing the data so that your FFT was always running over closely spaced local data. Way more effort went into the block transpose with the absolute mininum number of page faults than went into optimising the core FFT (although it did even back then have go faster stripes for certain cases).

There was soem playing around with Winograd FFTs for radix 6 and 10 but they never gained populairty on our site.

Paradoxically on modern CPU's pure power of two FFT's fight with the hardware cache algorithms and other non 2^N radix choices can be faster.

For looking at a few spot frequencies the DFT could sometimes win out.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown
Loading thread data ...

Then you get into quite tricky territory. Are viruses alive or not? They are certainly self replicating entities but have to hijack the apparatus of a host cell in order to reproduce.

I agree that until they can also construct a self assembling cell wall ab intio that they haven't solved the artificial life problem entirely but it looks to me like it is only a matter of time before they do.

People see all sorts of strange things under the enormous stress of bereavement. If it helps you then believe in it.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Anecdotally some medical schools give their students human dissection practicals in the first couple of weeks.

There's the old joke of, ahem, mating bits of a male cadaver with a complete female cadaver, knowing that a new female student would be doing the exercise. When she uncovered the dirty deed her quick-witted response was "OK, which one of you guys left in a hurry?"

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Denying observation is a bad thing.

Saying 'I did not see that so it does not exist' same. No was not under stress any of these times, on the contrary.

Nearly 100 percent of what you 'believe' from 'science' is not from your own observations.

Science is at this time at the level of earth wind and fire [as basic elements] and has always been, and likely, for us ants in the universe, will always be, More is likely not needed for the survival of the species, not that I expect the survival of the human species... for eternity.

LOL

God beware they create life, if they did Frankenstein would dim in comparison.

OTOH maybe 'us' is just an experiment from same aliens, MOST LIKELY FROM A JUVENILE WITH A DR MONSTER KIT FOR ITS BIRTHDAY.

But more seriously, 't won't 'appen. He Has The Whole Word In His Hands

If He gave the control to us.... then goto LOL or cry

But then I'm a humming bean, and sometimes wrong.

Dinos

Fun subject.

Reply to
<698839253X6D445TD

Being careful about the interpretation of what you thought you saw is a goo d thing.

That's not exactly what is being said.

Of course not.

own observations.

True, but science has a rather elaborate system for checking and confirming other peoples observation, and getting them to fit into a coherent system.

Your observations may not be quite so well cross-connected.

Twaddle. There's obviously a long way further to go, but what we've got now is rather more useful than the four elements approach ever was.

Species survive for about 10 million years, on average.

Human seem to have latched onto a new scheme for exploiting rather more of the environment than any other terrestrial animal - so we aren't an average species - and we'll probably diversify into a lot of species specialised i n exploiting an even wider range of environments.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

It wasn't kindness. Freshmen chemistry was mandatory and the kids who flunked were out of the university. The faculty was sort of proud of that, getting rid of the losers. I don't think the losers left feeling very proud.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Freshmen chemistry was mandatory for all courses? How weird! So is having such draconian exams at the end of the first term.

My university made mathematics for scientists mandatory but you could choose whichever of the sciences you studied. There were two streams of maths the hard stream and the easier one. I went mostly to the hard stream except in one term when the lecturer was so opaque (a brilliant guy and great fun to know as I later found out but he couldn't teach to save his life and his exam questions were impossible time wasters).

During that term all the people who really understood maths drifted off to the easy course on set theory which became overcrowded whilst some of the people from the easy course drifted the other way to get a seat!

During the summer there were optional courses on computing, German and Russian for reading chemistry papers in the original language. Only computing ability was actually tested as a formal project though.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Exactly my point but in this case it was quite a while between the measurement and the theory that explained it.

Reply to
krw

Both chemistry and physics were the admitted flunk-out courses when I was in school. Before I wen through, they also had TAM (Theoretical and Applied Mechanics - stone crushing) and Thermo to help flunk out more.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.