is incorrect.jj said:
...
The decomposition of the FFT into smaller FFT's (not DFT's, FFT's,...
...
Ion said:Did you pass the quiz?
Note to readers:
just this (but much more all over the post)
is incorrect.
"...smaller fft's..." should read '...smaller D.F.T.s...'.jj said:
...
My original statement was entirely, precisely correct.
As anyone who wants to dig up Rabiner and Gold can tell, an FFT can be either DIT or DIF, and in either case, each consists of factoring an FFT into smaller fft's, etc.
...
Ion said:There you go, incorrect again:
"...smaller fft's..." should read '...smaller D.F.T.s...".
Entirely false. An FFT impliments a DFT in an efficient way. An FFT is nothing but a faster implimentation of a DFT. We are talking, as indicated in the part of the quote that you selectively removed, about EFFICIENT methods. Ergo, FFT is the germane statement.
One could use a DFT, and be less efficient. Of course, when you get down to 2 points, they are the same, but that's not what you're implying here, since you're suggesting that the distinction makes any practical difference WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING EFFICIENCY AS STATED IN MY POST, BEFORE YOU ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE SELECTIVE QUOTING.
I specifically mentioned efficiency in my posting, and you dishonestly removed it from your quote, showing your evident malice.
Your attempt at misrepresenting and at misrepresenting a simple truth as "errror"arises entirely from your own dishonest, selective quoting. Your selective quoting is fully and completely visible in the two articles involved, mine and then yours, and needs no further evidence to fully demonstrate it.
My original comment was: "The decomposition of the FFT into smaller FFT's (not DFT's, FFT's, since you started out talking about efficiency)"
It is clear that you removed the necessary qualification for purely deceptive purposes.
Besides this scientific technicality, there is the wrong spelling again, by a native of the language, which is corrected by me the foreigner:
"....F.F.T...." is singular and "...F.F.T.s..." is plural
-just like "...car..." is singular and "...cars..." is plural while "...car's..." is not plural-.
Ooh. A spelling flame. I'm mortified. I guess that you regard spelling flames as more important than substance. I'm not surprised, you certainly can't find substance to debate.
Gee, the barbarians I meet...
which is an explanation at the level of:Ion said:
...
1.) F.F.T algorithms are based on the principle of decomposing the computation of the Discrete Fourier Transform of a sequence of length N into successively smaller Discrete Fourier Transforms.
...
Ion said:False, jj.
An F.F.T. is:
which is an explanation at the level of:
'D.S.P. for dummies'.
For you.
jj,jj said:Ion, you have asserted that you have (at least) two publications, one on lattice predictors, and one on noise-shaping (or weighting) filters.
Please provide full title, list of all authors, journal, page, date, etc, for these two papers so that we may verify their existance and content.
As reproducibility and falsifiability are underpinnings of the scientific method, I am sure that you will be more than willing to provide this data.
Ion said:
jj,
you as one who writes "...fft's..." in your native language, who has a slow learning curve when persisting on writing "...Goertzal...", who defines F.F.T. by smaller F.F.T.s -like defining blonds by blonds-, who doesn't know the 'ABC' of what a F.F.T is in relation to D.F.T., you shouldn't ask for anything from me.
No kidding.jj said:
Yeah, yeah, it's you vs. the world. Everyone else is wrong.
...
are wrong.Ion said:
jj,
you as one who writes "...fft's..." in your native language, who has a slow learning curve when persisting on writing "...Goertzal...", who defines F.F.T. by smaller F.F.T.s -like defining blonds by blonds-, who doesn't know the 'ABC' of what a F.F.T is in relation to D.F.T., you shouldn't ask for anything from me.
...
Ion said:
No kidding.
So I am imported to the U.S. to make gainful employment in D.S.P. because "...Everyone is wrong."?
Please specify who "imported" you and to what purpose. I was imported from Appalachia to Murray Hill, NJ, for the same purpose. So?
Who imported you? For waht purpose.
Instead, I think that people at your level:
are wrong.
jj,jj said:
You obviously don't understand the relationship between an FFT and a DFT...
...
Ion said:
jj,
.) you don't understand the relation between an F.F.T. and a D.F.T.;
Yes, we all know that you claim that. What you don't recognize is the inductive definition inherent in DIT and DIF FFT algorithms. Please acquaint yourself with this basic detail.
.) you don't understand that an F.F.T. is not defined by being F.F.T. -like a blond is not defined by being blond- since that is not a explanatory definition;
Thank you for explaining that you don't understand inductive proof.
Thank you for also demonstrating that you apparently do not understand that an FFT exactly impliments the processing necessary to provide the values of the DFT of the same size.
Obviously, since the FFT DOES do so, wherever you put a DFT, assuming it's got a small prime factorized length, (i.e. the length is not a large prime), it's more efficient than the DFT and provides the same process. Ergo, the two can be equated. As one of the most famous formulations is exactly a recursive form of FFT, your claim is shown false by a very famous (but not maximally efficient) algorithm published in nearly every text I've seen. It is your inability, time and again, to make these kinds of obvious connections that seems to cause you difficulties, like those you have in "unstable digital FIR filters" and the like.
Finally, again your claim shows that woo-woo classic of "everyone but me is wrong".
No, Ion, Cooley and Tukey, Rabiner, Gold, Proakis, Crochiere, Schaefer, Smith, Akansu, etc, aren't all wrong, and they all have the actual output to demonstrate it. (I could mention some others who did things like your DTMF algorithm their first two months at Bell Labs,but I won't, I'm really NOT trying to tear you down here, rather I'd prefer that you realize you're a very junior person, with some promise, who has an enormously bad attitude and who should have been told not to make serious professional allegations against the leaders in his field by those famous French professors he had.)
Your inability to learn because of your political aggression and anti-American bigotry is, however, apalling.
.) you don't understand that U.S. imports for gainful employment immigrants with specialized skills that locals like you don't have.
You claim that the USA "imported" you to do DSP work. Please tell us who, when, and where. Provide names, places, dates. Verifiable and falsifiable, remember?
But you sure bathe in idiocy.
Let me guess:
you must be a stupid American.
Once again you fail to address my posts outside my quotes.jj said:
Once again, you fail to...
...
Good question. Have you reported my alleged crime yet? Did you notify the board management that I 'threatened' you?Ion said:
Once again you fail to address my posts outside my quotes.
There's nothing to address. You insist that everyone else in the world is wrong, but you offer no proof. That's not surprising, since the counter-proof is obvious.
Not that would help you in understanding the definition of F.F.T., but still...
That is in fact true. I understand what an FFT is. You obviously don't, if you can't realize that an FFT impliments the solution to a DFT.
How is the threatening going?
Are you drunk? I thought we dealt with that when you refused to contact the police after making that claim the last time.
Have you made progress on that?
So how is the threatening of hurting me going?jj said:
Good question. Have you reported my alleged crime yet? Did you notify the board management that I 'threatened' you?
...
Ion said:
So how is the threatening of hurting me going?
Any progress on that?
jj,
you are a fraud.
See definition of F.F.T.s that you don't know and see spelling "...fft's..." which is illiteracy.
I bet you are American.
I don't negotiate about the definition of a F.F.T..jj said:
Again, no substance, you simply repeat your dishonest questions.
...
Oh, another felling splame! O tempura, O Sushi!Ion said:
I don't negotiate about the definition of a F.F.T..
There's nothing to negotiate. The recursive form of the FFT is well-known.
Given that, you're once again asserting that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. You sound just like Ian or WhoChi, or even Iacchus, raving away over a point that you lost before you said it the first time.
It shows that you are a fraud who blows smoke.
So says the coward who won't provide Title, author, journal, etc, of the work s/he says s/he's done.
I would suggest that until you DO specify exactly Title, Authors, Journal, etc, including yourself, and IDENTIFYING yourself, so that we can tell you actually are the one involved, you're no scientist.
Verification is a keystone of the process. We can't verify a thing you say until you provide us with some outside evidence. Now can you do it, or can you not do it?
Or are you just afraid to be known by your real name?
And in your lifetime you didn't learn your native language when writing "...fft's...".