Reply by Rune Allnor March 30, 20072007-03-30
On 30 Mar, 14:22, "julius" <juli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 6:40 am, "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: > > > Cultural differences is a major issue here. Remember, once Wiener's > > WW II papers were de-classified, the cold war was on. Getting > > access to Russian papers was not at all easy for people in the > > west; crediting the Russians for their contributions was probably > > a very sensitive issue even if the material was known. > > > Thse sorts of things are everywhere, once you start looking for > > them. What I know as Snell's law of ray refractions, the French > > know as Descarte's law. > > > Rune > > Yup. But one can still find papers written in the "West" that > refer to the Wiener-Kolmogorov filter, at least in the 1970s, > so the knowledge of the shared credit is not completely lost.
I haven't seen Wiener's original papers or reports, so I don't know what previous works he cited. The seminal reference on the Remez exchange algorithm is a paper or book by Remez in Russian from the late '50s. In underwater acoustics, no western text comes even remotely close to Brekhovskikh's text from around 1960 (I don't remember now if the text was first published in 1960, or if the English translation became available in 1960). Don't get me wrog, very useful material *did* seep through the Iron Courtain. Rune
Reply by julius March 30, 20072007-03-30
On Mar 30, 6:40 am, "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Cultural differences is a major issue here. Remember, once Wiener's > WW II papers were de-classified, the cold war was on. Getting > access to Russian papers was not at all easy for people in the > west; crediting the Russians for their contributions was probably > a very sensitive issue even if the material was known. > > Thse sorts of things are everywhere, once you start looking for > them. What I know as Snell's law of ray refractions, the French > know as Descarte's law. > > Rune
Yup. But one can still find papers written in the "West" that refer to the Wiener-Kolmogorov filter, at least in the 1970s, so the knowledge of the shared credit is not completely lost. I have not followed Kolmogorov's work on this, so I don't know whether there's a discrepancy between how far Wiener (and his descendants) and Kolmogorov (and his descendants) have pushed this theme. Unfortunately just like in any other area in life, following-up with your product is also important :^). Julius
Reply by Rune Allnor March 30, 20072007-03-30
On 30 Mar, 04:09, gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Linear estimation theory is normally credited to Wiener around 1949 > though he did have a classified report in the war years. Also, > Kolmogorov published the discrete-time version.... > Andrei N. Kolmogorov. Interpolation and extrapolation of stationary > random sequences (in Russian). Izvestiya AN SSSR. Mathematics series, > 5:314, 1941 > > in 1941. Wiener did continuous time. So why talk of Wiener filters? It > should be Kolmogorov-Wiener Filters?
Cultural differences is a major issue here. Remember, once Wiener's WW II papers were de-classified, the cold war was on. Getting access to Russian papers was not at all easy for people in the west; crediting the Russians for their contributions was probably a very sensitive issue even if the material was known. Thse sorts of things are everywhere, once you start looking for them. What I know as Snell's law of ray refractions, the French know as Descarte's law. Rune
Reply by March 29, 20072007-03-29
Linear estimation theory is normally credited to Wiener around 1949
though he did have a classified report in the war years. Also,
Kolmogorov published the discrete-time version....
Andrei N. Kolmogorov. Interpolation and extrapolation of stationary
random sequences (in Russian). Izvestiya AN SSSR. Mathematics series,
5:314, 1941

in 1941. Wiener did continuous time. So why talk of Wiener filters? It
should be Kolmogorov-Wiener Filters?

Wang King