for your info: ch. 11 mbe: fast fourier transforms

dlakelan wrote:
>
> I am not actually advocating changing what the FFT DOES, only how we
> describe what it does, so that people know where the frequencies are.
> The current formula in the documentation is true because frequencies
> higher than the Nyquist frequency (pi radians per sample) alias
> appropriately onto negative frequencies...
>
> In a sampled signal, there are no frequencies representable that are
> greater in absolute value than the nyquist frequency, so the current
> formula which involves frequencies from 0 to 2pi radians per sample is
> again confusing.
>
> I'm advocating the use of a formula (in the documentation) which
> describes what the current FFT does in a way that is more
> interpretable, but exactly equivalent (I think!). I would be happy to
> hear where I'm going wrong on the exactly equivalent part.
>
> I agree, we should not change what the FFT does.
>
>
Ok.  So which formula do you want changed?  The formula for the
definition of the FFT?

Ray

(Who wonders why he doesn't receive his own messages to the mailing list
anymore.  He used to.)