Fred Marshall wrote:> > I must say that your problem is very familiar to me too! So don't be > disheartened.Me too. Early on, math came with great difficulty to me also and being in an electrical engineering program I was constantly challenged. It takes perserverence but the facility comes with usage. I am amazed today at how easily I can move into a new mathematical area and how quickly it makes sense. I'da never thought. :-) Sometimes difficulty is a sign that you need total understanding and perspective to carry on and that can make it seem harder than it might to someone who can settle for its utility. You might think you are in the latter school when you are in fact in the former. That's a good thing in the long run.> The idea that this is simply language is a particularly powerful idea. The > problem is that the language part you're having trouble with is that it's > shorthand! So you try to read at your own "normal" rate and the shorthand > just doesn't allow that - it's too compact. Yet, it's still language with a > few new terms thrown in.But with a big difference. To me, visualization was an essential component in learning to swim in that ocean. I'd never make a theoretical or mathematical physicist. :-)> Finally, understand this: many papers are not well written for clarity or > to be understood. So, in addition to there being issues of language and > shorthand, some stuff is just crap from a presentation point of view and > maybe from a real content point of view as well. Skip those papers unless > someone tells you they're really important.On the other hand, much of my learning was in puzzling through exactly such papers and filling in the gaps in them and in my own knowledge to come to an understanding of the topic that was sufficient for implementation or variation. I'd say don't skip a paper that you feel you should be able to understand but don't. Rather, buckle down and work it through. I can think of some papers that I spent months coming back to, setting aside, looking at things that might clarify them until the final aha moment that made it all worth it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
Please advise! what kind of training I am lackfor math?
Started by ●January 30, 2004
Reply by ●January 31, 20042004-01-31
Reply by ●January 31, 20042004-01-31
"walala" <mizhael@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bven6i$6k6$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...> Dear all, > > I have long been headache about this problem... please help me! let me try > to explain my problem to you: > > For years I have been headache about reading math notations. A concept, if > it is put in straightforward way, I can understand. But if it is put in a > math notation, or even advanced math notation, I will feel dizzy when I read > it. I cannot avoid feeling dizzy if I meet math formulars having more than 3 > lines. But I am in graduate school and must accquaint myself with maths. For > some reason, in my research field, information theory and signal processing, > if there is no math, the research may be regarded as low quality; hence high > quality journals are full of maths. I can never fully understand a paper > full of maths.Well Information Theory is not even math anymore. A bunch of [high|low]-on-Recursive-LSD\2pH-9 Psychologists took over the entire field about 30 years ago, so don't worry about too much. Signal Processing is the same way too these days. It's been 50 years since anybody in signal processing even wrote anything that you could sell anywhere outside the US Air Force, so it's not even signal processing. And since the people doing the really advanced math don't even publish in paper Journals, it's not true.
Reply by ●January 31, 20042004-01-31
"walala" <mizhael@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bven6i$6k6$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...> So I am at a very akward stage now: if give me undergraduate math to read, I > feel too easy and boring, if give me difficult math to read as those in > Information Theory Transactions, I feel dizzy...I don't know about information theory, but I did once take an intro class on real analysis. I find that to be a great aid in reading contemporary research articles on DSP. Rune
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message news:401B5752.F096FF34@arcanemethods.com...> > > Fred Marshall wrote: > > > > I must say that your problem is very familiar to me too! So don't be > > disheartened. > > Me too. Early on, math came with great difficulty to me > also and being in an electrical engineering program I was > constantly challenged. It takes perserverence but the > facility comes with usage. I am amazed today at how easily > I can move into a new mathematical area and how quickly it > makes sense. I'da never thought. :-) > > Sometimes difficulty is a sign that you need total > understanding and perspective to carry on and that can make > it seem harder than it might to someone who can settle for > its utility. You might think you are in the latter school > when you are in fact in the former. That's a good thing in > the long run. > > > The idea that this is simply language is a particularly powerful idea.The> > problem is that the language part you're having trouble with is thatit's> > shorthand! So you try to read at your own "normal" rate and theshorthand> > just doesn't allow that - it's too compact. Yet, it's still languagewith a> > few new terms thrown in. > > But with a big difference. To me, visualization was an > essential component in learning to swim in that ocean. I'd > never make a theoretical or mathematical physicist. :-) > > > Finally, understand this: many papers are not well written for clarityor> > to be understood. So, in addition to there being issues of language and > > shorthand, some stuff is just crap from a presentation point of view and > > maybe from a real content point of view as well. Skip those papersunless> > someone tells you they're really important. > > On the other hand, much of my learning was in puzzling > through exactly such papers and filling in the gaps in them > and in my own knowledge to come to an understanding of the > topic that was sufficient for implementation or variation. > I'd say don't skip a paper that you feel you should be able > to understand but don't. Rather, buckle down and work it > through. I can think of some papers that I spent months > coming back to, setting aside, looking at things that might > clarify them until the final aha moment that made it all > worth it.I think we agree. My point was in being choosy about which papers to spend time on. Fred
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
Fred Marshall wrote:> > > On the other hand, much of my learning was in puzzling > > through exactly such papers and filling in the gaps in them > > and in my own knowledge to come to an understanding of the > > topic that was sufficient for implementation or variation. > > I'd say don't skip a paper that you feel you should be able > > to understand but don't. Rather, buckle down and work it > > through. I can think of some papers that I spent months > > coming back to, setting aside, looking at things that might > > clarify them until the final aha moment that made it all > > worth it. > > I think we agree. My point was in being choosy about which papers to spend > time on.For sure. I'm just recommending that obscurity not be a criterion in and of itself. It can be difficult to anticipate that there may be a nugget at the end of the trail but one develops a sense of it. I'm looking at one such now: http://www.atvs.diac.upm.es/publicaciones/docs/Bot00a.pdf I've got some serious work to do to know whether this contains an answer to my current problem but my sense is that it does. The question now is whether it may be too concise in its discussion of the noise reduction part of the approach that I won't be able to use it even when I've accumulated the background. I know several authors that go to pains to develop a formulation of the problem to then just tell you that they've solved it. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:28:59 -0800, Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:> >(snipped)> >I'm looking at one such now: > > http://www.atvs.diac.upm.es/publicaciones/docs/Bot00a.pdf >(snipped) Hi Bob, just for giggles, I peeked at the first page of that paper. I was puzzled about how the authors could say, in the abstract, that a signal is "decomposed in its allpass and minimum-phase components ..." What the heck is the "allpass component" of a signal? You don't have to answer that for me Bob. I realize it's just careless use of terminology. They should have said: " a system's *frequency response* is decomposed into its allpass and minimum-phase components ..." Now if the rest of the text is carelessly- written, your job gets *much* tougher. Hope ya' find your "nugget of gold". Good Luck, [-Rick-]
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
Rick Lyons wrote:> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:28:59 -0800, Bob Cain > <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote: > > >> > (snipped) > >>I'm looking at one such now: >> >> http://www.atvs.diac.upm.es/publicaciones/docs/Bot00a.pdf >> > > (snipped) > > Hi Bob, > just for giggles, I peeked at the first page > of that paper. I was puzzled about how the > authors could say, in the abstract, that a > signal is > > "decomposed in its allpass > and minimum-phase components ..." > > What the heck is the "allpass component" of > a signal? You don't have to answer that for > me Bob. I realize it's just careless use of > terminology. They should have said: > > > " a system's *frequency response* is > decomposed into its allpass > and minimum-phase components ..." > > Now if the rest of the text is carelessly- > written, your job gets *much* tougher. > > Hope ya' find your "nugget of gold". > > Good Luck, > [-Rick-]And compare their "to" to your "into". Peeple who don't rite so good are hard to unnerstand. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
"walala" <mizhael@yahoo.com> wrote:>So I am at a very akward stage now: if give me undergraduate math to read, I >feel too easy and boring, if give me difficult math to read as those in >Information Theory Transactions, I feel dizzy...>Can anybody recommend some procedures/reference books to give me a treatment >for my current sickness? Can anybody give a booklist that any big guy in the >field would recommend as a must-read as a systematic treatment to math for >researchers in math-related engineering/science area?Graham, Knuth, and Patashnik's CONCRETE MATHEMATICS comes to mind. Also, Oppenheim's SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS. --gregbo gds at best dot com
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
<gds@best.cut.here.com> wrote in message news:I%aTb.61079$vn.160293@sea-read.news.verio.net...> "walala" <mizhael@yahoo.com> wrote: > >So I am at a very akward stage now: if give me undergraduate math toread, I> >feel too easy and boring, if give me difficult math to read as those in > >Information Theory Transactions, I feel dizzy... > > >Can anybody recommend some procedures/reference books to give me atreatment> >for my current sickness? Can anybody give a booklist that any big guy inthe> >field would recommend as a must-read as a systematic treatment to mathfor> >researchers in math-related engineering/science area? > > Graham, Knuth, and Patashnik's CONCRETE MATHEMATICS comes to mind. > Also, Oppenheim's SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS. > > --gregbo > gds at best dot comWe had studied Oppenheim's book in undergraduate, maybe I did not study it well or fully understand it... :=) But Knuth's book seems a good one, I will go and take a look! Thank you!
Reply by ●February 1, 20042004-02-01
"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:f56893ae.0401310524.53e5f2a1@posting.google.com...> "walala" <mizhael@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:<bven6i$6k6$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...> > > So I am at a very akward stage now: if give me undergraduate math toread, I> > feel too easy and boring, if give me difficult math to read as those in > > Information Theory Transactions, I feel dizzy... > > I don't know about information theory, but I did once take an intro class > on real analysis. I find that to be a great aid in reading contemporary > research articles on DSP. > > RuneYou said it. After reading your experience, I now more positively think that real analysis should be able to cure my sickness. I heard it many times, but was not very sure that I should select this one to take out of those many math courses... Thank you! -Walala
