| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I presume the N= 1000 cases are to warrant the "short method" of doing the DFT. correct? | + | =[[Hw7ECE438F10|HW7]] Discussion, [[ECE438]], Fall 2010= |
| − | : Correct indeed | + | |
| − | Can't I use the short method for every part? And what exactly do you want for the thought question at the bottom? ak's are going to be the same as the DFT right? | + | *I presume the N= 1000 cases are to warrant the "short method" of doing the DFT. correct? |
| + | :: Correct indeed. -pm | ||
| + | *Can't I use the short method for every part? And what exactly do you want for the thought question at the bottom? ak's are going to be the same as the DFT right? | ||
| + | ::Warning: the short method does not always work. You need to be able to quickly determine whether it will work just from looking at the signal. Now, the ak's are not quite the same as X[k]'s. You need to find out what the difference is. -pm | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | [[2010_Fall_ECE_438_Boutin|Back to ECE438 Fall 2010, Prof. Boutin]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:33, 22 October 2010
HW7 Discussion, ECE438, Fall 2010
- I presume the N= 1000 cases are to warrant the "short method" of doing the DFT. correct?
- Correct indeed. -pm
- Can't I use the short method for every part? And what exactly do you want for the thought question at the bottom? ak's are going to be the same as the DFT right?
- Warning: the short method does not always work. You need to be able to quickly determine whether it will work just from looking at the signal. Now, the ak's are not quite the same as X[k]'s. You need to find out what the difference is. -pm
