Re: Can you recommend a good explanation of the proof of the Fourier Transform?

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g4iada$pm$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Andor" <andor.bariska@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>
news:fc0eb3cf-cddd-4c6b-af7c-6b146d6b220e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>On 3 Jul., 02:23, "maxplanck" <erik.bo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> The FT is the one DSP technique that I'm most interested in applying,
so
>>> I'd like to understand as much about it as may be useful. But I have 
>>> more
>>> to learn aside from any proofs, so I'll try to learn that and see if
it 
>>> can
>>> do what I hope it can do. If anything seems too mysterious I'll come 
>>> back
>>> to trying to understand the proof.
>>>
>>> Sufficient proof for my level of understanding of the FT at this point
>>> would probably just be to understand why correlation works.
>> What you are writing is this:
>> Proposition: The Fourier Transform.
>> Proof: ???.
>> Since The Fourier Transform is not a proposition, but really a
>> definition, it cannot be proven.
>
> It is clear that Max is asking for the proof that the Fourier series and
> transforms do what they say on the tin, and that is to _CORRECTLY_
> represent an incoming waveform by an infinite bunch of cisoidals.
>
> As such, Max is a budding engineer of future repute and not just some
> button-pu****ng technician blindly applying formulae by rote as many
> of the self-styled "experts" present on this NG.

I take it that you can't or won't answer the question yourself.

>
> How do any of the experts prove that what they claim about Fourier
> is true? For myself I have only seen a derivation from the initial axiom
> that repetetive waveforms can be represented by an infinite bunch
> of cisoids, but I've never seen a proof of the initial axiom. I suspect
> that  is what Max seeks.

Assuming someone presented you with a proof of that "axiom" (Jerry Avins
is 
correct - one does not prove axioms), there would a further "axiom" - keep

quibbling if it makes you happy...  Or better yet, take a few math courses

and see if you can figure it out.

>
> Keep searching, Max, but I doubt that you'll get your answer in this NG.
>
> My own experience of them is that they'll blindly quote formulae
verbatim
> at you but when you challenge them on the derivations, they'll bluster
in 
> the first
> instance and resort to rather silly and infantile outbursts inorder to
try 
> to mask
> that despite being the "experts", they haven't a clue about the 
> fundamentals
> and thus present as uppity technicians and not professional engineers.
>
>
>
>
>
>