Forums

I am working on a new DSP textbook using Python. Comments are welcome!

Started by AllenDowney January 5, 2015
rickman wrote:
> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>> [...] >>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' instead of >>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>> back the >>>> tide. >>> >>> There is another problem too. >>> >>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>> >> >> >> In English, "virii". > > If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated > for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been > pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The > English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the > computer community. >
"Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? Bah! :) I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does not say. Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one. <snip> -- Les Cargill

wrote in message 
news:872ae513-22f7-4d15-aaaa-680f905c71e8@googlegroups.com...

To be a little more clear:  have them write program which shows acosf +bsinf 
=Ccos [f+phaseshift] and that the sinusoid is a cos [or sin] with any phase 
shift

I assume the poster meant a * cos(f) + b * sin(f) =  C * cos(f + 
phaseshift).  I'd replace f with f*t (or 2*pi*f*t) throughout.

   Best wishes,
   --Phil Martel 

On 1/7/2015 7:02 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> rickman wrote: >> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' >>>>> instead of >>>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>>> back the >>>>> tide. >>>> >>>> There is another problem too. >>>> >>>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>>> >>> >>> >>> In English, "virii". >> >> If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated >> for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been >> pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The >> English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the >> computer community. >> > > "Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? > Bah! :) > > I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a > living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES > EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... > > I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's > perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does > not say. > > Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* > hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) > > They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one.
All I know is virii ain't a word in any language. -- Rick
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:01:46 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/7/2015 7:02 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >> rickman wrote: >>> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>>>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' >>>>>> instead of >>>>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>>>> back the >>>>>> tide. >>>>> >>>>> There is another problem too. >>>>> >>>>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>>>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In English, "virii". >>> >>> If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated >>> for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been >>> pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The >>> English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the >>> computer community. >>> >> >> "Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? >> Bah! :) >> >> I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a >> living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES >> EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... >> >> I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's >> perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does >> not say. >> >> Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* >> hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) >> >> They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one. > >All I know is virii ain't a word in any language.
Apparently it is. It's been used here several times and people understood the meaning. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
On 1/8/2015 10:14 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:01:46 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/7/2015 7:02 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' >>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>>>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>>>>> back the >>>>>>> tide. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is another problem too. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>>>>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In English, "virii". >>>> >>>> If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated >>>> for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been >>>> pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The >>>> English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the >>>> computer community. >>>> >>> >>> "Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? >>> Bah! :) >>> >>> I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a >>> living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES >>> EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... >>> >>> I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's >>> perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does >>> not say. >>> >>> Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* >>> hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) >>> >>> They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one. >> >> All I know is virii ain't a word in any language. > > Apparently it is. It's been used here several times and people > understood the meaning.
Sorry, that doesn't make it a word. Lots of people understand pwnd and any manner of language specific to a small group. That doesn't make it a part of any language. -- Rick
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:12:56 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/8/2015 10:14 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:01:46 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 1/7/2015 7:02 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> rickman wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>>> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>>>>>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' >>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>>>>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>>>>>> back the >>>>>>>> tide. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is another problem too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>>>>>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In English, "virii". >>>>> >>>>> If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated >>>>> for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been >>>>> pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The >>>>> English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the >>>>> computer community. >>>>> >>>> >>>> "Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? >>>> Bah! :) >>>> >>>> I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a >>>> living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES >>>> EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... >>>> >>>> I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's >>>> perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does >>>> not say. >>>> >>>> Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* >>>> hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) >>>> >>>> They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one. >>> >>> All I know is virii ain't a word in any language. >> >> Apparently it is. It's been used here several times and people >> understood the meaning. > >Sorry, that doesn't make it a word. Lots of people understand pwnd and >any manner of language specific to a small group. That doesn't make it >a part of any language. > >-- > >Rick
Usage of words define them. Dictionaries just reflect the most common and established usage. Glorbfutz is a word. So is snurglefop. If they're not words, what are they? Gibberish consists of words, they're just not very useful. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
On 1/9/2015 11:29 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:12:56 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/8/2015 10:14 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:01:46 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/7/2015 7:02 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>> rickman wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>>>> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' >>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>>>>>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>>>>>>> back the >>>>>>>>> tide. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is another problem too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>>>>>>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In English, "virii". >>>>>> >>>>>> If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated >>>>>> for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been >>>>>> pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The >>>>>> English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the >>>>>> computer community. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? >>>>> Bah! :) >>>>> >>>>> I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a >>>>> living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES >>>>> EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... >>>>> >>>>> I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's >>>>> perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does >>>>> not say. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* >>>>> hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) >>>>> >>>>> They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one. >>>> >>>> All I know is virii ain't a word in any language. >>> >>> Apparently it is. It's been used here several times and people >>> understood the meaning. >> >> Sorry, that doesn't make it a word. Lots of people understand pwnd and >> any manner of language specific to a small group. That doesn't make it >> a part of any language. >> >> -- >> >> Rick > > Usage of words define them. Dictionaries just reflect the most common > and established usage. > > Glorbfutz is a word. So is snurglefop. If they're not words, what > are they? Gibberish consists of words, they're just not very useful.
Ok, by your definition everything is a word. End of discussion. -- Rick
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:20:43 -0600, "AllenDowney" <103119@dsprelated>
wrote:

>I am developing a textbook for a computational (as opposed to mathematical) >approach to DSP, with emphasis on applications (as opposed to theory). > >I have a draft of the first 8 chapters, working on two more. I am >publishing excepts and the supporting IPython notebooks in my blog, here: > >http://thinkdsp.blogspot.com/2015/01/january-is-dsp-month.html > >Of if you want to go straight to the book, it is here: > >http://think-dsp.com > >Comments (and corrections) are welcome!
Hello Allen, My compliments to you for preparing tutorial information. [1] I vote that you use "spectra" instead of "spectrums." [2] I suggest you go through your material and change all instances of the word "frame" to the word "sample." Why use the non-standard, and possibly confusing, word "frame" for a single number when the rest of the world of DSP literature uses the word "sample" to describe a single number? [3] I suggest you go through your figures (like Figure 2.6 for example) and show all discrete sequences (discrete signals) as a series of dots rather than as continuous curves. Imagine how confused a DSP beginner will be when they see a picture of a continuous (analog) signal and you call it a "sampled signal" or a "sampled waveform." This is a big deal. For the sake of your readers, please do not ignore this suggestion. [-Rick-]
I'll bet he is a heck of a good scrabble player.  Champion in his own home for sure.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:17:04 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/9/2015 11:29 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:12:56 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 1/8/2015 10:14 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:01:46 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/7/2015 7:02 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>>> rickman wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/2015 8:19 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>>>>> Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2015-01-06 20:43, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> English is moving toward pluralizing Latin words with an 's' >>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>> the Latin rules. Now that we've abandoned making people learn Latin >>>>>>>>>> before they can be considered learned, I don't think you can hold >>>>>>>>>> back the >>>>>>>>>> tide. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is another problem too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example, "virus" (poison) has *no* plural >>>>>>>>> in Latin, so how do you say "two virus(es)"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In English, "virii". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you check multiple references you will find virii as being deprecated >>>>>>> for viruses. In fact, it was never virii since as has already been >>>>>>> pointed out virus is from a latin word which has *no* plural form. The >>>>>>> English plural form is viruses. Virii is a trendy word mostly in the >>>>>>> computer community. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Deprecated" in this case meaning it once was proper and is no more? >>>>>> Bah! :) >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't particularly *care* about usage in Latin. English is a >>>>>> living neologistic language that grows rather quickly. ROMANES >>>>>> EUNT DOMUS for the Python literate out there... >>>>>> >>>>>> I am pretty sure ( as you say ) it's a techie neologism, but it's >>>>>> perfectly good English, regardless of what any dictionary says or does >>>>>> not say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, if you're in a formal situation where the dictionary *does* >>>>>> hold final sway, then I suppose you are stuck :) >>>>>> >>>>>> They used to say "ain't ain't a word" and then it was one. >>>>> >>>>> All I know is virii ain't a word in any language. >>>> >>>> Apparently it is. It's been used here several times and people >>>> understood the meaning. >>> >>> Sorry, that doesn't make it a word. Lots of people understand pwnd and >>> any manner of language specific to a small group. That doesn't make it >>> a part of any language. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Rick >> >> Usage of words define them. Dictionaries just reflect the most common >> and established usage. >> >> Glorbfutz is a word. So is snurglefop. If they're not words, what >> are they? Gibberish consists of words, they're just not very useful. > >Ok, by your definition everything is a word. End of discussion.
Way to miss the point. I agree with this guy: http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/not-a-word-is-not-an-argument/ Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com