|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> So, to undo all this, double both signals, multiply one by a sinewave,
>> then add them back together. Hence, the butterfly.
>
> I want you to know that's the first explanation of it I've ever been
> able to follow.
Shamelessly paraphrased from The DSP Guide. ;-) But thank you.
It seems to be that (in general) there are two ways to explain any
mathematical result:
- As a sequence of mechanical transformations of symbols.
- As a vague but intuitive examination of *why* this (or at least
something roughly this shape) should work.
Non-mathematicians tend to respond better to the latter, and it's
terribly hard to glean from the former.
I still vividly remember the day I figured out why that famous formula
actually solves quadratic equations. Maybe I'll share it with you?
> I'm not a very mathematical person.
...says the guy who actually knows WTF a nondeterministic Turing machine
*is*! :-P
> You definitely should write some Haskell documentation. :-)
Heh, yeah.
Sadly, before you can document something, you must comprehend it. Also,
the Haskell library documentation uses literate proramming - i.e., the
documentation is inside the library source code, so to update it you'd
have to submit a patch to the library maintainer, yadda yadda yackt...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |