On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 23:50:22 +0100 Attila Kinali <att...@kinali.ch> wrote:
> > Every experimentalist suppose ergodicity on this kind of noise, otherwise > > you get nowhere. > > Err.. no. Even if you assume that the spectrum tops off at some very > low frequency and does not increase anymore, ie that there is a finite > limit to noise power, even then ergodicity is not given. > Ergodicity breaks because the noise process is not stationary. > And assuming so for any kind of 1/f noise would be wrong. Addendum: the reason why this is wrong is because assuming noise is ergodic means it is stationary. But the reason why we have to treat 1/f noise specially is exactly because it is not stationary. I.e. we lose the one property in our model that we need to make the model realistic. Attila Kinali -- <JaberWorky> The bad part of Zurich is where the degenerates throw DARK chocolate at you. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.