→Overemphasis on time as a variable: thread replies. added another |
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →Overemphasis on time as a variable: OK, now I am beginning to understand why Brews was frustrated |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:::Agree with Brews. This should be first defined in the most general way (that can be any variable). After that, one can tell something like this: "For example, if defined as a function of time ..." and so on (and mostly keep the current text in introduction as not to cause anyone's objections). Moreover, it tells "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done". It would be better to tell: "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done for periodic functions". [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::Agree with Brews. This should be first defined in the most general way (that can be any variable). After that, one can tell something like this: "For example, if defined as a function of time ..." and so on (and mostly keep the current text in introduction as not to cause anyone's objections). Moreover, it tells "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done". It would be better to tell: "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done for periodic functions". [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::So, per you, the Fourier transform should be defined in the lead as follows: "The Fourier transform is the decomposition of a tempered distribution on a locally compact group as an integral over the spectrum of the Hecke algebra of the group." [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::So, per you, the Fourier transform should be defined in the lead as follows: "The Fourier transform is the decomposition of a tempered distribution on a locally compact group as an integral over the spectrum of the Hecke algebra of the group." [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::No, quite the opposite. It would be much easier for me just to fix the text instead of discussion [[reductio ad ridiculum]], but I suggest that Brews should do it, just to look if there are any problems with his editing, or ths is something else. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::And I do not even see any reason to mention time so many times in introduction. In fact, the introduction could be completely rewritten for brevity and clarity.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::And I do not even see any reason to mention time so many times in introduction. In fact, the introduction could be completely rewritten for brevity and clarity.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::The lead is written to be read by someone with no prior background in the subject ([[WP:LEAD]], [[WP:MTAA]]). It's true that it could be shortened substantially, thereby rendering it useless to such an individual. [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 12:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::The lead is written to be read by someone with no prior background in the subject ([[WP:LEAD]], [[WP:MTAA]]). It's true that it could be shortened substantially, thereby rendering it useless to such an individual. [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 12:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::I am extremely surprised that such an obvious matter (the Fourier_transform is not about time) becomes a matter of discussion. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:13, 20 May 2012
![]() | Mathematics B‑class Top‑priority | |||||||||
|
|
|||||
Citation issue
FYI: I'm seeing a red warning message: Harv error: link to #CITEREFHewittRoss1971 doesn't point to any citation.
I dont have time to fix it now, but I thought Id post a notice. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Fixed: the in-text citation used the year 1971, but the reference itself at the bottom of the page was 1970. I changed the in-text reference to 1970, which seems to be the correct year. This was a book in a multi-volume set, so I checked that the reference at the bottom is the one actually being referenced in the text, and it is (since chapter 7 is in volume 2). Good spot! This has been wrong ever since the citation was added (in-text citation added, reference added). Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Overemphasis on time as a variable
The article begins:
- "expresses a mathematical function of time as a function of frequency, known as its frequency spectrum" [italics mine]
Throughout time is emphasized, although in fact the transform applies to a function of any variable whatsoever. Most noticeably, the Fourier transform applies to functions of distance, and allows expansions in terms of components characterized by wavevector.
The article does contain the section on space, but this minor consideration does not convey the generality of the method, which should be made apparent at the beginning. Brews ohare (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A very general discussion is found here in terms of distributions and test functions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an absolute requirement that an article must start in the maximum possible generality. In fact, there are generally good reasons for not doing this, and I believe this is the case here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is well known that different minds react differently to material, with some responding best to development from the particular to the general, and others the reverse. However, it is not desirable to allow the initial impression that an introductory example is the entire subject, and that impression is easily avoided by a clear statement at the outset. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Brews. This should be first defined in the most general way (that can be any variable). After that, one can tell something like this: "For example, if defined as a function of time ..." and so on (and mostly keep the current text in introduction as not to cause anyone's objections). Moreover, it tells "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done". It would be better to tell: "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done for periodic functions". My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, per you, the Fourier transform should be defined in the lead as follows: "The Fourier transform is the decomposition of a tempered distribution on a locally compact group as an integral over the spectrum of the Hecke algebra of the group." Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, quite the opposite. It would be much easier for me just to fix the text instead of discussion reductio ad ridiculum, but I suggest that Brews should do it, just to look if there are any problems with his editing, or ths is something else. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, per you, the Fourier transform should be defined in the lead as follows: "The Fourier transform is the decomposition of a tempered distribution on a locally compact group as an integral over the spectrum of the Hecke algebra of the group." Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- And I do not even see any reason to mention time so many times in introduction. In fact, the introduction could be completely rewritten for brevity and clarity.My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The lead is written to be read by someone with no prior background in the subject (WP:LEAD, WP:MTAA). It's true that it could be shortened substantially, thereby rendering it useless to such an individual. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am extremely surprised that such an obvious matter (the Fourier_transform is not about time) becomes a matter of discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The lead is written to be read by someone with no prior background in the subject (WP:LEAD, WP:MTAA). It's true that it could be shortened substantially, thereby rendering it useless to such an individual. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Brews. This should be first defined in the most general way (that can be any variable). After that, one can tell something like this: "For example, if defined as a function of time ..." and so on (and mostly keep the current text in introduction as not to cause anyone's objections). Moreover, it tells "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done". It would be better to tell: "Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done for periodic functions". My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is well known that different minds react differently to material, with some responding best to development from the particular to the general, and others the reverse. However, it is not desirable to allow the initial impression that an introductory example is the entire subject, and that impression is easily avoided by a clear statement at the outset. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)