On Jan 3, 11:53 pm, "Jon Slaughter" wrote: [.....]
The code for docomposing into Walsh waveforms looks a lot like the one for doing an FFT. It runs a lot faster than FFT because no sin(X) needs to be done.
Even the non-fast version looks like the non-fast FT. You need the ability to do a parity check computation. It looks a lot like this:
Sum = 0 Mask = BitReverse(Freq)
for I = 0 to N-1 if Parity(Mask AND I) Sum = Sum + X[I] else Sum = Sum - X[I] next I
Then it's clear that your faith blinds you to any facts that contradict your dogma.
Here are facts coming out your ears:
But, like all dogmatic fanatics, you will simply not see it.
Why do I waste my time? It's like trying to talk sense to a brick.
Good Luck! Rich
That's a quote by "The Scientific People" in "The Stars My Destination." It would be difficult to explain - it would take about three pages to set the context. See, 98.6F is normal body temperature, and these "scientific people" are anything but scientific. "Quant Suff!" is their chant.
Have you ever read a book?
Thanks, Rich
So the best "scientific" facts you have at your disposal are provided by a band of political hacks?
How is that any better data than Al Gore's movie?
=20
ific
Certainly not tripe like that.
--=20 Keith
Ah! The perfect example of the fanatic mindset. You won't even read it, because your mind is already made up that it's "tripe".
The real truth is, you refuse to read it because you know that it will expose the fallacies of your faith, so rather than even try to refute it, you simply deny it. And, of course you are convinced that your denials are an accurate picture of reality.
This wouldn't really be a big deal, but Al and his minions want to force everyone to behave within the ludicrous confines of his own psychopathic fantasy world, and has the bucks to actually try. He's a very dangerous man, because he believes his on delusions.
Good Luck! Rich
His attitude is just like Bill's wrt global warming. Simply shut out what you don't want to see/hear and/or dismiss it using simple assertionms of worthlessness.
Fancy that Bill = krw !
Graham
Nope. Like most here (I know you believe you're special) I have finite time on this Earth. That sort of thing interests me not one bit.
No, the real truth is that I have no interest in reading that tripe, nor the time to if I did.
What the hell are you yakking about?
-- Keith
Dumbass, you're the dumbest donkey on the planet! Wow!
-- Keith
It is really quite simple, can you integrate it or differentiate it once or more times and have a self similar repetitive signal?
There are very few waveshapes that can to that.
OK My filter is a full diode bridge; do you pretend that the output of that is a sine wave?
"Joseph2kook"
** Your ugly head is your arse hole too.** Go drop dead - you asinine, bloody wanker.
....... Phil
Give us a break.......
the more there are the more of an exact square wave it is.. if you take a signal generator and put on an ociliscope and zoom righ tin youll see little bumps all over it.
Yes, hundreds. The plural form of hundred, in other words AT LEAST 2 hundred. An infinite number is consistent with "at least 2 hundred".
:-)
Mark
-- Yes, but in the vernacular, \'hundreds\' is considered to be, in the limit, less than a thousand. An apt comparison, using your method, might be to say that placing rovers on Mars took tens of hours.
You're absolutely correct. I was kidding around, sorry if that wasn't obvious.
Mark
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.