Thanks for posting this! It's always interesting to get such a good glimpse
at someone else's mental model.
I'm one of those people who prefer to think of a discrete-time signal as
representing the unique bandlimited function interpolating its samples. And
I don't think this point of view has
>
> This needs an additional qualifier, something about the bandlimited
> function with the lowest possible bandwidth, or containing DC, or
> "baseband," or such.
Yes, by bandlimited here I mean bandlimited to [-Nyquist, Nyquist].
Otherwise, there are a countably infinite number of bandlimited
>I'm one of those people who prefer to think of a discrete-time signal as
>representing the unique bandlimited function interpolating its samples.
This needs an additional qualifier, something about the bandlimited
function with the lowest possible bandwidth, or containing DC, or
"baseband," or
Interesting comments, Ethan.
Somewhat related to your points, I also had a situation on this board years ago
where I said that sample rate conversion was LTI. It was a specific context,
regarding downsampling, so a number of people, one by one, basically quoted
back the reason I was wrong.
Hi Ethan,
Good comments and questions…I’m going to have to skip the questions for now
(I’m in a race against time the next few days, then will been off the grid,
relatively speaking, for a couple of weeks—but I didn’t want to seem like I was
ignoring your reply; I think any quick answers to
Ethan F wrote:
>I see your nitpick and raise you. :o) Surely there are uncountably many
such functions,
>as the power at any apparent frequency can be distributed arbitrarily
among the bands.
Ah, good point. Uncountable it is!
Nigel R wrote:
>But I think there are good reasons to understand the
