zero-pad as an interpolation in frequency domain?

On 22 Nov, 12:50, "John E. Hadstate" <jh113...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>
> news:e9cc2ff2-2bde-4f9d-bec3-882661f0466c@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If you have read - and contemplated - my other posts
> > in this thread you will find that I do not think any
> > discrete
> > sequence, strictly speaking, can be defined as an
> > interpolation.
>
> You're pretty far out on a limb there, Chief.  Everyone else
> in the world understands "interpolation" to mean "finding
> points on an interval between given endpoints subject to the
> constraints of a particular model (often linear)."

In my book (and in my maths books as well) "interpolation"
means "finding continuous functions which intersect a given
set of points."

> Everything about this screams, "Discrete sequence."

One of the most popular methods fro interpolation is based on
splines, which are continuous functions which intersect the given
points. How does spline interpolation fit into this?

> What
> part of "finding points" don't you understand?

How they fit in with a concept which aims to find
continuous functions.

> > My personal opinion is that I can go along with the term
> > as
> > a day-to-day sloppiness, provided the original spectrum
> > coefficients are preserved. Once those are gone, the term
> > "interpolation" has lost what little meaning was left.
>
> It looks to me like you long ago backed yourself into an
> untenable position and are now engaged in a desperate battle

I am just trying to point out the holes in your and others
arguments. Dale B Dalrymple turned personal on me,
I made him aware of this fact and requested him to address
my arguments, not my person. Just read the posts.

> to save face by abusing and insulting the intelligence of
> anyone who will pay attention to you.

I have done nothing but to point out that there is a fundamental
difference between discrete points and continuous functions.
I have based all my arguments on this simple fact. If you and
Dale have a problem with this, and me pointing it out (no pun
intended), then that's your problem.

It is up to you to draw any conclusions about the intelligence
of the participants. Which you, apparently, already have done.

> So far as I'm
> concerned, you are about a half-sample short of a discrete
> trip to my killfile.

Please, put me there. If that can prevent me from
engaging in battles with someone who knows "several
methods" which contradict my position but can't name
a single one, then all the better.

Rune

"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message 
news:dd932d49-6727-49f9-9d4a-9e9ee5fa77ec@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>> So far as I'm
>> concerned, you are about a half-sample short of a 
>> discrete
>> trip to my killfile.
>
> Please, put me there. If that can prevent me from
> engaging in battles with someone who knows "several
> methods" which contradict my position but can't name
> a single one, then all the better.

Not "can't," moron, "won't".

Anyway, your wish is my command: *plonk*

>
> Rune 

On 22 Nov, 13:24, "John E. Hadstate" <jh113...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>
> news:dd932d49-6727-49f9-9d4a-9e9ee5fa77ec@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> So far as I'm
> >> concerned, you are about a half-sample short of a
> >> discrete
> >> trip to my killfile.
>
> > Please, put me there. If that can prevent me from
> > engaging in battles with someone who knows "several
> > methods" which contradict my position but can't name
> > a single one, then all the better.
>
> Not "can't," moron, "won't".

And *you* are accusing *me* for insulting other people's
intelligence...!?

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 22 Nov, 12:31, "John E. Hadstate" <jh113...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d2c59763-5c39-4450-8528-b1b316ea50b2@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you think I am wrong when I say "one never samples the
>>> spectrum"
>>> could you please come up with an example on where one
>>> samples
>>> the spectrum directly? Without deriving it by sampling
>>> time domain
>>> data first and then compute the spectrum?
>> Look up filter design by the frequency-sampling technique.
> 
> OK, my fault because I let myself slip too far towards Dale's
> position where "Human language conforms to practice not
> deduction". I  wasn't precise enough as I -- as is a not
> totally unheard of habit when starting out in one particular
> context -- was staying with the established context of the
> current thread, namely the analyzis of measured data, not
> the design of filters.
> 
> By the way, I am still waiting for your enlightenement on
> interpolation schemes which do not intersect the given
> points.

I pointed out one which discards half of the original samples. Did you 
miss it? We can discard a greater proportion by changing the numbers.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;