<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Peter Kootsookos Blog on DSPRelated.com</title>
<link>https://www.dsprelated.com/blogs-1/nf/Peter_Kootsookos.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[RSS Feed for Peter Kootsookos Blog on DSPRelated.com]]></description>

<atom:link href="https://www.dsprelated.com/blogs_rss.php?bloggerid=31188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<language>en-US</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 07:22:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>1778743336</pubDate>
<item>
<title>Deesspee #5</title>
<link>https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/81.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[Deesspee #5 - Computers
<p><a href="http://www.deesspee.com" rel="nofollow"></a></p>]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:44:14 +0000</pubDate>
<author>Peter Kootsookos</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Nature of Circles</title>
<link>https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/57.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[What do you mean?
<p>When calculating the mean of a list of numbers, the obvious approach is to sum them and divide by how many there are.</p>
<p>Suppose I give you a list of two numbers:</p>
<ul>
<li>0</li>
<li>359 </li>
</ul>
<p>What is their mean? The obvious answer is 179.5.</p>
<p>If I told you that the numbers were compass bearings in degrees, what would your answer be then? Does 179.5 seem correct?</p>
<p>In the case of compass...]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:21:35 +0000</pubDate>
<author>Peter Kootsookos</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>Correlation without pre-whitening is often misleading</title>
<link>https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/52.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[White Lies <p>Correlation, as one of the first tools DSP users add to their tool box, can automate locating a known signal within a second (usually larger) signal.  The expected result of a correlation is a nice sharp peak at the location of the known signal and few, if any, extraneous peaks.</p><p>A little thought will show this to be incorrect: correlating a signal with itself is only guaranteed to...]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
<author>Peter Kootsookos</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>