S
Seeker After Truth
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
(I wonder if those malicious and infantile souls, G1LVN? G7KUJ?
G3VKI? G8/M3OSN? M5GWH?, who are contemporaneously
uttering forgeries purporting to have come from me in contravention
of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 and the
Telecommunications Act 1984 Section 43, have considered that they
might be liable to extradition to Italy, the site of the aioe server, to
answer for their crimes of forgery?)
For a number of years I have maintained a search to resolve the
numerical anomalies that are present in many texts and web-sites
that attempt to present a mathematical justification for representing
sampling in the real world as Diracian Delta Functions. In return for
what was a genuine and sincere search for the truth, I received a
great number of essentially infantile responses from many people
who were the celebrated authors and pundits of DSP, but never
did I receive a straightforward and simple explanation.Many
insulting remarks, yes, and many specious explanantions that
seemed to owe more to the make-believe world that is religion
than to any mathematical and engineering rigour.
(I was rather surprised this morning to discover a thread in comp.dsp
from 1998 where several of those who set out to insult me had
also expressed the self-same problem.)
I have now found a good explanation for the use of the Diracian
Delta Function to represent the sampled signal, a trivially simple one
(and embarrassingly so, but then I was distracted by so many
seeming authorities and misleading text-books) that does not require
any religious-like bending of attributes (such as sampling by the AREA
of a pulse that was favoured by the infantile and cowardly "Chimera",
whoever she was).
This explanation may be found in Volume 1, "Introduction to DSP",
of the "DSPedia" published by "Steepest Ascent" and authored
by Stewrt, Garcia-Alis, Rice, Stirling, and Freeland, in the
pages around 2.18, "Short Duration Unit Pulse and Impulse"
I do not seek that you should all rush off and read it, that is very
bad manners. What I will do, however, is give you all time to
reveal that you really did know the answer and were merely
responding to some inexplicable motivation to want to insult
in your original contributions. (This will gainsay the likes of Brian Reay,
who, not knowing the answer at all, will claim to have
known it anyway when it is revealed. An example of Brian
Reay's duplicity can be seen in his post of this morning about "Big K"
where he refers incorrectly to his post of 7th March 04 at 8:51
in the thread with a "chalk-and-cheese"-like title. I ask that none
of you quote my remarks about Brian Reay because he claims that
he cannot see my posts and therefore cannot currently be
distressed by my criticism of him)
G3VKI? G8/M3OSN? M5GWH?, who are contemporaneously
uttering forgeries purporting to have come from me in contravention
of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 and the
Telecommunications Act 1984 Section 43, have considered that they
might be liable to extradition to Italy, the site of the aioe server, to
answer for their crimes of forgery?)
For a number of years I have maintained a search to resolve the
numerical anomalies that are present in many texts and web-sites
that attempt to present a mathematical justification for representing
sampling in the real world as Diracian Delta Functions. In return for
what was a genuine and sincere search for the truth, I received a
great number of essentially infantile responses from many people
who were the celebrated authors and pundits of DSP, but never
did I receive a straightforward and simple explanation.Many
insulting remarks, yes, and many specious explanantions that
seemed to owe more to the make-believe world that is religion
than to any mathematical and engineering rigour.
(I was rather surprised this morning to discover a thread in comp.dsp
from 1998 where several of those who set out to insult me had
also expressed the self-same problem.)
I have now found a good explanation for the use of the Diracian
Delta Function to represent the sampled signal, a trivially simple one
(and embarrassingly so, but then I was distracted by so many
seeming authorities and misleading text-books) that does not require
any religious-like bending of attributes (such as sampling by the AREA
of a pulse that was favoured by the infantile and cowardly "Chimera",
whoever she was).
This explanation may be found in Volume 1, "Introduction to DSP",
of the "DSPedia" published by "Steepest Ascent" and authored
by Stewrt, Garcia-Alis, Rice, Stirling, and Freeland, in the
pages around 2.18, "Short Duration Unit Pulse and Impulse"
I do not seek that you should all rush off and read it, that is very
bad manners. What I will do, however, is give you all time to
reveal that you really did know the answer and were merely
responding to some inexplicable motivation to want to insult
in your original contributions. (This will gainsay the likes of Brian Reay,
who, not knowing the answer at all, will claim to have
known it anyway when it is revealed. An example of Brian
Reay's duplicity can be seen in his post of this morning about "Big K"
where he refers incorrectly to his post of 7th March 04 at 8:51
in the thread with a "chalk-and-cheese"-like title. I ask that none
of you quote my remarks about Brian Reay because he claims that
he cannot see my posts and therefore cannot currently be
distressed by my criticism of him)
