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

On 11 Jul, 18:12, Steve Underwood <ste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 10 Jul, 00:31, steve <bungalow_st...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> >> But if you talk with an experience analog engineer, someone who
> >> excelled in linear algebra class, =A0he still doesn=92t want to hear
a=
bout
> >> dot products or linear transforms or optimum least square
> >> approximations, he wants to hear about a =93bank of sinc filters=94
> >> analogy. You have to find an analogy that is consistent with a
persons
> >> background and build on it.
>
> > The key phrase you use is 'wants to hear.' Not 'needs to hear' or
> > 'benefits from hearing'. I know this is considered by many to be
> > controversial, but my view is, and has always been, that analog
> > electronics and DSP are separate diciplines that should be
> > approached separately, each on its own terms.
>
> > Rune
>
> The first fast practical Fourier transform machines were purely
> analogue, working directly in terms of sinc functions. 'Wants to hear'
> is a perfectly reasonable thing to say here, because its just a
> different perspective on exactly the same thing.

The first self-propelled vehicles were steam locomotives.
While that fact certainly holds some historical interest,
do you think it is useful to explain the workings of
present-day cars or trains in terms of steam engines?

Rune