Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>*Date*: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:41:13 -0700

On 01/09/2009 04:34 PM, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:

I'm either being pedantic or still missing the point. Given a choice,

I'd rather not miss the point.

Ugh, you got me again. I left out one or two steps in the

argument. Let me try again:

In the spirit of the correspondence principle, let’s examine the

relationship between a discrete Fourier transform and a non-discrete

Fourier transform. We start with a discrete transform and see what

happens:

1. As previously discussed: When dt becomes small, the frequency-range

of the first period of the output becomes large, so it covers a big

piece of the f-axis. (The output is always defined for all frequencies,

so we can’t talk about the range of the output, only the range of one

period.)

2. Obviously as N_t dt becomes large, the input data covers a big piece

of the t-axis.

3. As previously discussed: When N_f dt becomes large, the output becomes

nearly continuous. The output period is being divided very finely.

4. For present purposes, let’s assume N_f = N_t, so that the transformation

will be “just barely” invertible in both directions. Call this common

value N.

5. If you take both limits together – small dt and large Ndt – the discrete

Fourier transform begins to look a whole lot like the old-fashioned

non-discrete Fourier transform.

You can't have a sampled input without having the output of the

transform be periodic. The proof is simple:

Understood. The way I had always looked at this was as follows

(hoping I can make this clear in my non-UTF8 client, and hopefully

without typos). Casting a sampled x(t) as

sx(t) = [Sum_over_all_n] x[n] delta-function[t - nT]

where T is the sampling interval. Then, fourier-transform sx(t):

X(f) = [Integral over +- infinity] sx(t) exp(-2pi*i*f*t) dt

leading to

X(f) = [Sum_over_n] x[n] exp(-2pi*i*f*n*T)

which is a fourier series representation of X(f), which by definition

is periodic. Is there anything mathematically fishy about looking at

it in this slightly more formal way?

Looks OK to me.

The key step is convincing yourself that sampling is represented by

multiplying by a Dirac comb. The rest is just math.

BTW that's the other half of the correspondence argument, i.e. how you

go from the continuous Fourier integral to the discrete Fourier series.

=========

I like to have the equation *and* the picture. I recently cobbled up

the picture that goes with aliasing:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/fourier-refined.htm#fig-fourier-aliasing

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

**References**:**[Phys-l] some questions related to sampling***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] glassware needed** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] some questions related to sampling** - Index(es):