>> 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