Hi Rick, Yes, Tom Stockham was an interesting guy. I never heard him talk about the Nixon tapes-- he was probably under some sort of non-disclosure agreement. His biggest contribution was in the field of digital audio, leading to CDs and the like. For his work he received an Emmy, Grammy and Oscar. I think he is the only person to receive all three. Steve
Possibly unrelated questions
Started by ●February 15, 2008
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:> There are a number of very smart people posting in this news group, > yet most complain about complex numbers. I've come to realise that my > own schooling was a little unusual by global standards. We studied > complex numbers at about 12 years of age, not long after basic trig > and algebra, and before we had touched any calculus. I grew up > thinking of complex numbers as completely natural - more natural than > anything non-complex. Maybe the unusual order of our maths syllabus > was the better one.In the US, when and where I grew up (Panama City, FL, high school class of 1976), the "fast-track" math program went like this: Grade Course ----- ------ 8 Algebra I 9 Geometry 10 Algebra II 11 Trigonometry and Analytical Geometry 12 Math Analysis (pretty much Calc I) At 12, I was in the 6th grade. You had "basic trig and algebra" in 5th grade or earlier? -- % Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by %%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..." %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Rick Lyons wrote:> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:16:22 -0600, "SteveSmith" > <Steve.Smith1@SpectrumSDI.com> wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> One of your comments gave me a little laugh-- >> >> "I don't have too much problem with complex notation and its advantages >> per se." >> >> In contrast, I have a terrible problem with complex notation. I'd even go >> so far at to call it the "scourge of DSP." Let me stand on my soap box a >> bit. >> >> There is no question that complex numbers are elegant and enable some >> techniques that could not be achieved otherwise. A good example of this >> is the FFT. They also provide a compact and efficient way of handling the >> mathematics of DSP. So don't get me wrong; complex notation is a powerful >> and useful method. >> >> However, the vast majority of practical DSP techniques gain no benefit at >> all from using complex numbers. This includes the big three: >> Convolution, Spectral Analysis, and Basic Filtering. My mission over the >> years has been to show that 99% of useful DSP methods can be understood >> without needing to resort to complex notation. In my mind, complex >> methods should be viewed as an advanced subject; a second tier of >> education. For instance, this is how I structured my book. Out of 33 >> chapters, I don't use complex numbers until the last four. If interested, >> see www.DSPguide.com. Try starting with Chapter 14. This isn't to >> downplay other references-- for instance, Rick Lyons book' is really >> outstanding. I just wanted to give you an alternative approach that may >> mesh better with your background. >> >> Why is this so personal to me? I came through a conventional Ph.D. >> program in EE with emphasis on DSP. My primary mentor was Tom Stockham, a >> pioneer in the field and an outstanding instructor. And I did well-- >> nothing but "A"s. Then I hit industry with quite a shock. I could do >> integrals like crazy, but couldn't design even the most basic filters. >> The primary reason I wrote my book was to teach myself useful DSP >> techniques-- what I should have learned in college, but didn't because >> they were too busy teaching me complex math. >> >> Soap box speech over. Good luck! >> >> Regards, >> Steve > > Hi Steve, > your post was fun to read. > Your thoughts on complex notation certainly made > me recall my education and my working career > after graduation. I worked as a EE for over > twenty years and I can't recall having to think > about complex notation in my daily working life. > > Upon my graduation with my EE degree I assumed > complex notation (and "convolution", as well) > were merely concepts created by professors to > make my life, as a student, as miserable > as possible. > > It wasn't until I became interested in DSP that > I began to try to understand what in the heck > does that "j-operator" mean. That time period > was frustrating for me because the j-operator > seemed (at that time) to have *NO* physical > meaning. For example, I couldn't go to Radio > Shack and buy a "j-operator" and solder it on > a printed circuit board. Anyway, now I have > what I think is a fairly good idea of how > and why the j-operator is useful in describing > and processing sinusoidal signals. > > You mentioned your shock when you entered the > "working world". Ha ha. I agree completely. > When I entered the working world I was able > to perform partial fraction expansions > but I was *UNABLE*, in any meaningful way, to > use an oscilloscope, a spectrum analyzer, > or a logic state analyzer! When I graduated > I thought I was pretty "hot stuff". Little > did I know that as a new graduate engineer I was, > as Australians would say, about as useless as > a hat full of busted a__holes. :-)... I was luckier than you or Steve in some ways. I don't remember learning anything useful in school, not because I didn't learn anything, but because each stage was review and reinforcement. I began as an amateur. I learned a little electronics (from the ARRL Handbook and the back of the RCA tube manual in order to build myself a hi-fi system. (I built many of my own toys.) The first amplifier I built from scratch -- an Ultralinear Williamson -- was put together with a lump of copper on the end of an iron rod that had a wooden handle. I was modern: I heated it with a Bunsen burner instead of a blowtorch. I learned a great deal about hum when it didn't work. I had already some from a Heathkit that had a hum problem, traded for a hand-me-down Bogen low-power PA amplifier I had been given. It had been built by an engineering student at Columbia; neither he nor his buddies could quiet it. There was a funny thing on a bobbin covered with yellow tape that said "100 ohm 1%". It turned out to be the cathode resistor of a preamp stages and it wasn't far from the power transformer. I replaced it with a carbon resistor and the hum went away. I knew elementary calculus because I had wanted to, but no math beyond that. On the strength of that and other experience it led to -- upgrading Magnavoxes and Capeharts -- and the mechanical ability to get record changers and tape decks to work again, I got a job as the technician in a hi-fi boutique in Boston. I worked 12-hour days at first to get 8 hours of work done, and eventually learned my trade. I was happy. I bought a junker car for $75, rebuilt the engine for another $125 and a lot of work, and the world was mine. Then an old friend came into my life and we wanted to marry. My dead-end job wouldn't do. I moved back to New York with my parents and took RCA Institute's T-3 course. I didn't learn much that I hadn't already known enough to deal with. The knowledge I brought was deepened and expanded -- Laplace transforms got added to my bag if tricks, for example. After graduating, I got a job as a "qualified" technician at Andrea radio, where I soon was moved to the development lab. After a couple of years, my boss threw me out. "You're working like an engineer. Get a degree and get paid like one." So I did. Structural design and Strength of Materials -- required by the Board of Regents for all engineering curricula in public colleges -- were probably the most interesting courses. Looking back, I would add thermodynamics. As for electronics, I did learn what a phantastron and an amplidyne were, but most of the rest was review. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not claiming that I learned everything I need to know in kindergarten, but (especially for thick heads) it helps if there's plenty of time for things to sink in. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Richard Owlett wrote: ...> Humm, keep downloading chapters, maybe should buy the book ;)Damn right! If his publishers would let Rick put his book on line, it would probably sell more copies too. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Hi Rick, I almost forgot my favorite story about Tom Stockham. It was during my dissertation defense. I was standing there in front of Tom and five other equally distinguished professors-- and they were beating the crap out of me. They gave me questions so hard that no student could possibly answer. At one point, one of the professors even asked me: "So, you want to quit while you are behind?" After an hour or so, Tom gave a little speech. It's a classic-- words to live by. It went something like this: "Over the last hour we have asked you difficult questions. To most of those questions you said that you did not know the answer. That's very admirable. Many students try to talk their way through, even when they don't have the vaguest idea about the topic. It never surprises me when someone won't admit that they just don't know. That's human nature. But what always surprises me is the number of people that don't even realize that they don't know." Regards, Steve
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Randy Yates wrote:> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes: > >> There are a number of very smart people posting in this news group, >> yet most complain about complex numbers. I've come to realise that my >> own schooling was a little unusual by global standards. We studied >> complex numbers at about 12 years of age, not long after basic trig >> and algebra, and before we had touched any calculus. I grew up >> thinking of complex numbers as completely natural - more natural than >> anything non-complex. Maybe the unusual order of our maths syllabus >> was the better one. > > In the US, when and where I grew up (Panama City, FL, high school class > of 1976), the "fast-track" math program went like this: > > Grade Course > ----- ------ > 8 Algebra I > 9 Geometry > 10 Algebra II > 11 Trigonometry and Analytical Geometry > 12 Math Analysis (pretty much Calc I) > > At 12, I was in the 6th grade. You had "basic trig and algebra" in 5th > grade or earlier?That appears to mean Age Course ----- ------ 14 Algebra I 15 Geometry 16 Algebra II 17 Trigonometry and Analytical Geometry 18 Math Analysis (pretty much Calc I) Surely something is wrong with that time line. In the UK we move (moved) from primary school to high school at 11. In the first year at high school we did quite a bit of basic algebra and trig. I followed what the UK called a modern maths course, which involved a lot of logic, set theory and so on. That caused us to meet calculus later than in the traditional maths courses, and made a lot of people complain about modern maths. We'd still done some basic calculus at 16, though. Steve
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Richard Owlett wrote:> On the topic of "What I never learned in school", in another newsgroup I > was pointed to http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sphere.htm . > > The author, Thayer Watkins, says: > "This lack of recent texts on spherical geometry and trigonometry is > puzzling because the use of computers should shift the emphasis from > numerical computation to theory. This page is an attempt to present > derivations of important results from spherical geometry and trigonometry." > > In fact, I was first asked why I didn't use an readily available canned > solution before being referred to that page.Thanks for the link; I bookmarked it. There's not much of that math used for celestial navigation for a long time. It's mostly done with "line of position" and tables. Another astonishing lack: the Hydrographic Office has stopped publishing Bowditch's "American Practical Navigator". It's no longer a text at Annapolis. Where else can we learn how to compensate a compass on a steel ship or move an anchor chain from the port hawse hole to starboard while the ship is riding at anchor? I mean, C'mon, man! (I have the last published edition.) Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 16 Feb, 14:41, Richard Owlett <rowl...@atlascomm.net> wrote: >> On the topic of "What I never learned in school", in another newsgroup I >> was pointed tohttp://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sphere.htm. >> >> The author, Thayer Watkins, says: >> "This lack of recent texts on spherical geometry and trigonometry is >> puzzling because the use of computers should shift the emphasis from >> numerical computation to theory. This page is an attempt to present >> derivations of important results from spherical geometry and trigonometry." >> >> In fact, I was first asked why I didn't use an readily available canned >> solution before being referred to that page. > > This Watkins guy is wrong. Using computers doesn't shift > emphasis towards theory, it sifts emphasis towards nothing > at all. Students no longer ask 'how can I acieve this > result', they ask 'what function in matlab [or whatever > SW package] should I use to...'.Not all of them. Some say, "Who can send me code ...." We don't hear from the better ones in that way, but there must be a few. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> writes:> Steve, you studied under Thomas Stockham huh? Neat! > I never met Stockham (and never will because he passed > away not long ago) but I've read that he was > famous for:It also seems he won an Emmy and a Grammy: http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/people.php?taid=&id=1234718&lid=1 Ciao, Peter K. -- "And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars."
Reply by ●February 16, 20082008-02-16
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:00:21 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:00:35 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for that speech. I've said in the past that all of electronics >>> can be done without imaginary numbers. (Maxwell wrote his Treatise using >>> sets of three integral equations and trigonometry to develop his famous >>> equations.) The mathematics is simplified by complex algebra (I use it >>> when others use trig) but it introduces artifacts such as negative >>> frequencies. Some of the young whippersnappers here firmly believe that >>> complex quantities and negative frequencies are fundamental, inherent in >>> the nature of the universe. Some even hold that a single wire loop can >>> carry a complex signal. >>> >>> I'm relieved to have someone to join me on my occasional soap box. >>> >>> Jerry >> >> It ain't just the young whippersnappers...I'll be happy to take up >> that side of the argument again any time. ;) >> >> It does take a little bit of standing on one's head and holding the >> mirror just right, tho... > >There's no question that complex algebra is simpler than -- and >therefore illuminates -- trigonometry. Trigonometry is (was?) an >optional one-semester course in the New York City high-school >curriculum. A young friend who hadn't taken the course wanted to test >out by taking the Regents exam* two weeks away. I taught him the entire >syllabus, identities and all, with time to spare by building on his >prior acquaintance with complex algebra. (He aced the test.) > >The question is whether imaginary numbers and negative frequencies are >inherent qualities of the real world, or whether they are scaffolding >for the simplified mathematics that we use to describe it. I hold to the >latter alternative. > >JerryI think the best case is to have an understanding of both, i.e., real and complex analysis, and where they're best applied. Being able to understand how to apply both so that the subtleties of both sides of the "complex signal on a wire loop" arguments are understood is clearly a good end. How to get there in an educational curriculum is a challenge, IMHO, just because different people process those concepts differently. Getting everybody to the 'aha' point with a single education method isn't practical, I suspect. Getting students at least exposed to both to a level of basic understanding and functionality is pretty important, though. Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.ericjacobsen.org
