On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:16:10 -0800, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>>
>>I guessed you would think it was correct. You can't sample at a rate
>>equal to twice the frequency you are sampling. The wanted signal has
>>collided with its image and you can't disambiguate them. Thank you for
>>showing us that you are clueless.
>
>The definition they have for Nyquist Rate does not suggest
>anything different.
>
>   Nyquist rate:
>     The reciprocal of the Nyquist interval, i.e., the
>     minimum theoretical sampling rate that fully
>     describes a given signal, i.e., enables its
>     faithful reconstruction from the samples. Note: The
>     actual sampling rate required to reconstruct the
>     original signal will be somewhat higher than the
>     Nyquist rate, because of quantization errors
>     introduced by the sampling process.
>
>It does not say what you claimed it does.
>
>-- 

Floyd, be a good boy and piss off you lying little toad. Don't bother
replying any more because you are now in my killfile along with Phil
Alison. Why is it always the six-fingered inbreds from the outback
that cause the most grief around here?

d

-- 
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

n...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:16:10 -0800, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I guessed you would think it was correct. You can't sample at a rate
>>>equal to twice the frequency you are sampling. The wanted signal has
>>>collided with its image and you can't disambiguate them. Thank you for
>>>showing us that you are clueless.
>>
>>The definition they have for Nyquist Rate does not suggest
>>anything different.
>>
>>   Nyquist rate:
>>     The reciprocal of the Nyquist interval, i.e., the
>>     minimum theoretical sampling rate that fully
>>     describes a given signal, i.e., enables its
>>     faithful reconstruction from the samples. Note: The
>>     actual sampling rate required to reconstruct the
>>     original signal will be somewhat higher than the
>>     Nyquist rate, because of quantization errors
>>     introduced by the sampling process.
>>
>>It does not say what you claimed it does.
>>
>>--
>
>Floyd, be a good boy and piss off you lying little toad. Don't bother
>replying any more because you are now in my killfile along with Phil
>Alison. Why is it always the six-fingered inbreds from the outback
>that cause the most grief around here?

I see that you find it difficult to handle facts and
logic when you meet up with someone who can sort them
out at the drop of a hat.

Gratuitous insults are virtually always a fair
indication of the reflection the writer sees in a
mirror, so my only comment on your statements above is
that you seem to have a truly horrifying mental image of
yourself to use as an example when you want to insult
someone.

Whatever, if you had had your facts straight to begin
with, you wouldn't feel so crushed now.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              f...@apaflo.com

On 8/25/07 7:30 AM, in article 4...@news.plus.net, "Don
Pearce" <n...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:16:10 -0800, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> I guessed you would think it was correct. You can't sample at a rate
>>> equal to twice the frequency you are sampling. The wanted signal has
>>> collided with its image and you can't disambiguate them. Thank you for
>>> showing us that you are clueless.
>> 
>> The definition they have for Nyquist Rate does not suggest
>> anything different.
>> 
>>   Nyquist rate:
>>     The reciprocal of the Nyquist interval, i.e., the
>>     minimum theoretical sampling rate that fully
>>     describes a given signal, i.e., enables its
>>     faithful reconstruction from the samples. Note: The
>>     actual sampling rate required to reconstruct the
>>     original signal will be somewhat higher than the
>>     Nyquist rate, because of quantization errors
>>     introduced by the sampling process.
>> 
>> It does not say what you claimed it does.
>> 
>> -- 
> 
> Floyd, be a good boy and piss off you lying little toad. Don't bother
> replying any more because you are now in my killfile along with Phil
> Alison. Why is it always the six-fingered inbreds from the outback
> that cause the most grief around here?
> 
> d

The problem with people like Floyd is that, when you get frustrated from his
moronic misleading replies and lies, he will internalize that he has "won,"
and will feel empowered to continue in kind. Someone else posted that his
goal is to win at any cost (including his veracity) and facts will be
twisted or ignored to meet that goal.  It would be unfortunate if he posts
his views to Wikapedia.

Phil, on the other hand, seems to be technically correct, though sometimes
vague.  The latter is, I believe, to leave something for the OP to finish.
I always read his posts.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:54:15 -0800, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>I don't believe you understand the theorem.
>Incidentally, Nyquist didn't come up with the theorem,
>hence you really don't want to look at what Nyquist
>wrote much as at Shannon's mathematical proof of what
>Nyquist proposed.

Floyd, you're out of your league here.

Nyquist's and Shannon's careers overlapped a little bit at Bell Labs
and they collaborated a bit on some things...Nyquist reviewed a lot of
Shannon's early work, IIRC.

In any case, Nyquist clearly created the defining early work in this
area, and the correctness of that work has given it a lot of staying
power.   It's not really been superceded by anything.  Saying "you
really don't want to look at what Nyquist wrote" belies a deficiency
in your own understanding and makes me suspect that your motivation is
primarily to poison that well for anyone else who might want to
reference it.   You seem to like to define your own playing field
smaller and smaller and claim "I'm absolutely correct in this tiny
little circle" and somehow try to make that relevant to everybody
else.   At least, that's my take on it.

Shannon's work was primarily in laying the foundation for Information
Theory, and his sampling theorem was pretty much just re-working
Nyquist's theorem from an Information Theory perspective.   That's
important partly because context changes interpretation.  e.g., you
can't expect a single definition of a term to apply universally to all
possible cases when the contexts and technologies are constantly
changing.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

"Eric Jacobsen" <e...@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:k...@4ax.com...

"Pearls before swine".  However, I understand that the 
reason you do it is to keep people like Floyd from confusing 
the less-informed readers who will come along later.

I have a rule that changes the color of messages from 
certain posters to Hot Pink, and marks them Read and 
Ignored.  Floyd is a charter member of that group and he is 
really very pretty in pink ;-)