Nyquist and Shannon

Started by RichD February 4, 2016
Probly been asked many times, but - 

Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist?  
Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's 
contribution?  Where was the original's deficiency?

--
Rich
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:17:35 -0800, RichD wrote:

> Probly been asked many times, but - > > Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? Nyquist published > his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's contribution? Where was the > original's deficiency?
To the best of my possibly fallible recollection, Nyquist's original paper was about pulses on a telephone (or telegraph) line. It sort of hinted at the finished theory but didn't spell it out. Shannon spelled it out. The papers are out there in Internet-land if you Google for them. Then you'll know for sure, and you can tell me! -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
On 02/05/2016 07:17 AM, RichD wrote:
> Probly been asked many times, but - > > Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? > Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's > contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? > > -- > Rich >
Nyquist realised that sampling at twice the bandwidth worked, but didn't seem to figure out the theory to back that up. Shannon provided the theory, and generalised the idea to complex samples and other sampling patterns. Whittaker and Kotelnikov independently worked out the sampling theorem before either Nyquist or Shannon. Steve
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:17:39 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> Probly been asked many times, but - > > Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? > Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's > contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? > > -- > Rich
If I can presume to extend the scope of this discussion, Bode and Shannon subsequently coauthored a 1948 insightful interpretation of Norbert Wiener's "Extrapolation, Interpolation, and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series." That provides an optimized solution for a time series when only signal and noise spectra are available. With dynamic models available, modern estimation offers far superior and far more versatile capabilities (multidimensional applications, finite time, incomplete and indirect observations sampled at inconsistent rates, nonstationary error statistics, time-varying system parameters, ... ).
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:17:35 -0800 (PST), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Probly been asked many times, but - > >Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? >Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's >contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? > >-- >Rich
Basically, Nyquist covered it from a signal processing, frequency-content perspective. Shannon added the perspective of Information Theory, which was a significant thing. Essentially, Shannon restated and verified it from an Information Theory perspective. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 02:06:36 +0800, Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org>
wrote:

>On 02/05/2016 07:17 AM, RichD wrote: >> Probly been asked many times, but - >> >> Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? >> Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's >> contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? >> >> -- >> Rich >> >Nyquist realised that sampling at twice the bandwidth worked, but didn't >seem to figure out the theory to back that up. Shannon provided the >theory, and generalised the idea to complex samples and other sampling >patterns. Whittaker and Kotelnikov independently worked out the sampling >theorem before either Nyquist or Shannon.
That's a point that is often missed in the Western Hemisphere. I used to travel to Russia occassionally to synch up with some researchers there, and it was always interesting as a westerner to get the different perspective on the history of things. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
On 07.02.2016 0:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote:

(snip)

> That's a point that is often missed in the Western Hemisphere. I > used to travel to Russia occassionally to synch up with some > researchers there, and it was always interesting as a westerner to get > the different perspective on the history of things. > > > Eric Jacobsen > Anchor Hill Communications > http://www.anchorhill.com >
There's a Russian translation of 3rd edition of Proakis'es "Digital Communications" made by late prof. Daniil Klovskiy, which contains multiple footnotes with useful references to contributions made by Russian/Soviet authors. Unfortunately the book is too rare, but it can be found e.g. here: http://www.twirpx.com/file/45068/ Regards, Evgeny.
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 4:17:39 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Probly been asked many times, but - > > Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? > Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's > contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? > > -- > Rich
You find Unser's paper clarifies for you http://bigwww.epfl.ch/publications/unser0001.pdf Happy Reading, Clay
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC+13, RichD wrote:
> Probly been asked many times, but - > > Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? > Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's > contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? > > -- > Rich
It wasn't Nyquist or Shannon, but Whitaker and Kotelnikov
On 2/5/2016 1:06 PM, Steve Underwood wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 07:17 AM, RichD wrote: >> Probly been asked many times, but - >> >> Why is the sampling theorem called Shannon-Nyquist? >> Nyquist published his paper in 1924, what was Shannon's >> contribution? Where was the original's deficiency? >> >> -- >> Rich >> > Nyquist realised that sampling at twice the bandwidth worked, but didn't > seem to figure out the theory to back that up. Shannon provided the > theory, and generalised the idea to complex samples and other sampling > patterns. Whittaker and Kotelnikov independently worked out the sampling > theorem before either Nyquist or Shannon.
Whose papers had the most influence on the subsequent science? -- Rick