On Oct 19, 2:07=A0am, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:24:22 -0700 (PDT), "Steven G. Johnson"
>
>
>
> <stev...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Oct 17, 8:21=A0pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> I understand this. =A0You seem to be arguing that because a bunch of
> >> papers came to some conclusion that that conclusion must be true for
> >> everyone, everywhere.
>
> >No, I'm arguing that your claims of "substantial" advantages have no
> >sup****t, and your examples of supposed advantages (lower memory for
> >trig tables, more sequential access, reduced memory reordering) were
> >demonstrably false. =A0It is impossible to prove a negative, but since
> >you are the one claiming substantial advantages, the burden of proof
> >is on you, especially since people have tried and failed to
> >convincingly demonstrate such advantages for 20 years.
>
> >> Given that the two transforms are different, it would seem pretty
> >> logical that the differences would lead to advantages one way or
other
> >> depending on different cir***stances.
>
> >If you actually look in detail at the algorithms, they are in fact
> >extremely similar. This is why people who have studied the problem in
> >detail have concluded that there don't seem to be significant
> >advantages one way or the other. =A0You have yet to correctly identify
> >one significant difference.
>
> >I would be very happy to learn of a way to use the DHT to gain a
> >substantial advantage over real-data FFTs. =A0FFTs of real data are
> >annoying asymmetric transforms and the diversity of data formats for
> >their redundant complex outputs are a PITA. =A0But unsup****ted claims
of
> >substantial computational or memory savings, which have proved false
> >again and again for two decades, are not helpful.
>
> >Regards,
> >Steven G. Johnson
>
> 'Substantial' is in the eye of the beholder, and the context matters,
> as I've tried to repeatedly explain. =A0 I'm not interested in going
> down a road that seems to me to be clearly headed to the usual
> semantic nit-picking.
>
> I don't feel up to holding your hand or convincing you, since you seem
> already convinced of the infallibility of your point of view. =A0As I
> said, I don't really have a dog in this hunt and I've not felt the
> need to convince anyone of anything. =A0I was merely offering a point of
> view based on my personal experience. =A0 As usual, this being teh
> intartubes and all, all opinions are offered and taken FWTW. =A0Clearly
> you're already comfortable with being an expert on this topic. =A0I
> welcome you to your own contentedness in that realm.
>
> I will also say that I've given quite a few hints as to where one can
> find certain advantages and under what conditions. =A0 If you don't find
> yourself in those conditions, you may continue to not find an
> advantage. =A0 As usual, YMMV.
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Minister of Algorithms
> Abineau Communicationshttp://www.ericjacobsen.org
>
> Blog:http://www.dsprelated.com/blogs-1/hf/Eric_Jacobsen.php
|
