pshen@atrp.mit.edu (Paul Shen) (09/22/89)
I noticed that several people have asked about DSP textbooks. "Discrete-time Signal Processing" by Oppenheim and Schafer is a good one. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Email: pshen@atrp.mit.edu | Paul Shen | | Address: MIT, 36-665, Cambridge, Ma 02139 | Tel. (617) 864-3210 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jensen@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu (P. Allen Jensen) (09/22/89)
"Discrete-time Signal Processing" by Oppenheim and Schafer
is about the best I know of as well (I work with Dr. Scahfer here at Ga. Tech
and I think I may try to convince him to read this news group)
P. Allen Jensen
Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332
USENET: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,ulysses}!gatech!eedsp!jensen
INTERNET: jensen@eedsp.gatech.edujisom@santa_fe.Tops.Sun.COM (Jim Isom) (09/23/89)
In article <459@eedsp.gatech.edu> jensen@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu (P. Allen Jensen) writes: >"Discrete-time Signal Processing" by Oppenheim and Schafer >is about the best I know of as well (I work with Dr. Scahfer here at Ga. Tech >and I think I may try to convince him to read this news group) > >P. Allen Jensen Please try to get him to interract with the net on this subject. I have a copy of another of their books "Digital Signal Processing" that I have used for many years; it's my favorite. Dr. Schafer is certainly one of the most knowledgeable and well-known experts on DSP in the world. This could become a real learning experience group. In a slightly different vein... does anyone have an idea for a way to share equations with a (hopefully large) group of net users? One particular platform's graphics or typesetting would likely be out. I'm thinking of postscript, but I have no idea of the spread of users that could use it. This concern has arisen before; DSP needs sigmas, limits, etc to even begin to say anything. Ideas here? Dr. Schafer? Jim ... jisom@sun.com Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) (09/23/89)
In article <668@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM> jisom@santa_fe.tops.sun.com (Jim Isom) writes: >In a slightly different vein... does anyone have an idea for a way to share >equations with a (hopefully large) group of net users? One particular >platform's graphics or typesetting would likely be out. I'm thinking of >postscript, but I have no idea of the spread of users that could use it. Is LaTeX sufficiently common to use as a medium? It has just about everything you might want, and it is high-level enough that you can still read the source (well, most of the time, anyway :-) \sum_{i=0}^p a_i y_{n-i} = \sum_{l=0}^q b_i \xi_{n-i} SR
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/24/89)
In article <3085@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: >Is LaTeX sufficiently common to use as a medium? It has just about everything >you might want, and it is high-level enough that you can still read the source >(well, most of the time, anyway :-) > >\sum_{i=0}^p a_i y_{n-i} = \sum_{l=0}^q b_i \xi_{n-i} I think it's going to come down to a war between TeX and eqn. Each is more common in some environments. Expressive power is similar; the eqn version of the above is (assuming I've read the TeX correctly): sum from i=0 to p a sub i y sub {n-i} = sum from l=0 to q b sub i xi sub {n-i} Sticking strictly to readability, and disregarding the who's-got-which- software issue, I think eqn comes out ahead -- fewer silly backslashes and fewer artifacts of the odd character set Knuth used. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (09/24/89)
In article <3085@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: >In article <668@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM> jisom@santa_fe.tops.sun.com (Jim Isom) >writes: >>platform's graphics or typesetting would likely be out. I'm thinking of >>postscript, but I have no idea of the spread of users that could use it. >Is LaTeX sufficiently common to use as a medium? It has just about everything I think it's not. Encapsulated PostScript, as can be fed to any decent layout program, is, though. I think :') h+@nada.kth.se -- Anarchy is better that no government at all.
diaz@oakhill.UUCP (Rafael Diaz) (09/25/89)
To all DSP new comers! "Introduction to DSP" By: J. Proakis and D Manolakis is one
of the best NEW reference books on the subject. Chapter 11 (Last one) has Spectral
Analysis (Power Spectrum Estimation). It is written that all newcomers can follow
at thier own paste, also examples with FORTRAN subroutines are provided.
************ Those who can, do. Those who can't, simulate *************
. .
/\\ //\ Rafael E. Diaz UUCP: { ..!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!irit!diaz}
/ \\// \ { oakhill!irit!diaz@cs.utexas.edu}
/ `' \OTOROLA Inc. DSP Operations, Austin TX (512) 891 2977ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (09/25/89)
|>Is LaTeX sufficiently common to use as a medium? It has just about everything |>you might want, and it is high-level enough that you can still read the source |>(well, most of the time, anyway :-) |> |>\sum_{i=0}^p a_i y_{n-i} = \sum_{l=0}^q b_i \xi_{n-i} | |I think it's going to come down to a war between TeX and eqn. Each is more |common in some environments. Expressive power is similar; the eqn version |of the above is (assuming I've read the TeX correctly): | |sum from i=0 to p a sub i y sub {n-i} = sum from l=0 to q b sub i xi sub {n-i} ^^ Probably should be \(*x (Greek Xi). |Sticking strictly to readability, and disregarding the who's-got-which- |software issue, I think eqn comes out ahead -- fewer silly backslashes and |fewer artifacts of the odd character set Knuth used. If one doesn't like _ and ^ one can always do this \def\sub{_} \def\sup{^} $\sum\sub{i=0}\sup p a\sub i y\sub{n-i} = \sum\sub{l=0}\sup q b\sub i \xi\sub{n-i}$ which might look better with full braces $\sum\sub{i=0}\sup{p} a\sub{i} y\sub{n-i} = \sum\sub{l=0}\sup{q} b\sub{i} \xi\sub{n-i}$ Looks even better than eqn to me since you can tell which scripts belongs to which symbols. What's the big deal?
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (09/25/89)
In article <1989Sep24.032613.11841@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
)I think it's going to come down to a war between TeX and eqn. Each is more
)common in some environments. Expressive power is similar; the eqn version
)of the above is (assuming I've read the TeX correctly):
I think it's going to take a little closer look at "some environments."
I think it's probably far and away easier to find TeX to run on non-unix
machines, including PC, Mac, Amiga, ST, and so on. Also, I'd expect
it to be available on most unix machines which:
1) are associated with technical departments
2) hooked up to a laser printer or equiv.
I suggest we determine which is more common in the *subscribers*
environments, and that this means more than whether there are backslashes
in there.
I expect that people might frequently print the equations out, esp.
from the more useful postings.
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing "... the signs are very ominous,
{cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm and a chill wind blows."
- Justice Blackmun
Opinions are my own. Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (09/25/89)
In article <1989Sep24.032613.11841@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > I think it's going to come down to a war between TeX and eqn. Each is more > common in some environments. Expressive power is similar; Then why force users to choose one over the other? Why not develop public- domain translators between them? Then everyone could have the translator, and all sites could then select the system that maximizes their perceived benefit, while remaining certain that their output will have the widest possible distribution. The idea that *my* computer can't let me see *your* work is, IMHO, rather silly. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep25.033923.8607@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu writes: >|sum from i=0 to p a sub i y sub {n-i} = sum from l=0 to q b sub i xi sub {n-i} > ^^ >Probably should be \(*x (Greek Xi). No, eqn knows the names of the Greek characters. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/26/89)
In article <4593@amiga.UUCP> jimm@batgirl.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: >I think it's probably far and away easier to find TeX to run on non-unix >machines, including PC, Mac, Amiga, ST, and so on. Also, I'd expect >it to be available on most unix machines... >I suggest we determine which is more common in the *subscribers* >environments... Actually, I suggest we drop this entire line of debate, because it misses the most important point. Most people do not want to run the news articles through a text formatter to read them. Even those who might consider this have a good chance of not having the relevant formatter. Few people are going to want to run out and get a big, slow formatter program just so they can read postings (and they're *all* big and slow). There is a big difference between being able to get the software and actually having it on hand; most non-Unix machines in practice have *neither* eqn nor TeX. For that matter, there are a good many Unix machines -- especially System V boxes -- that have neither. The issue should be readability to the unaided human eye, not whose text formatter is found on more machines. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) (09/29/89)
In article <1989Sep25.185626.21313@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Actually, I suggest we drop this entire line of debate, because it misses > the most important point. I entirely agree. I went along with the ``common environment'' argument originally because an environment that is familiar to most people will have a distinct edge in effective readability. Unfortunately, the discussion seems to be going towards laser printing articles and other rare events (:-) I'm unfamiliar with Mathematica (did I get that name right from memory?) and so far nobody has shown any, but between eqn and LaTeX, I don't think there's much difference in readability -- at least, I'd be perfectly happy with either. (BTW you read my LaTeX right, assuming I read your eqn right :-). I don't think straight ASCII is the answer, it quickly gets *less* legible than an eqn or LaTeX or Mathematica-type notation. There wouldn't be any public domain eqn -> LaTeX and/or vv converter, would there now? That way we could keep the followers of both religions happy... SR
aglew@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Andy-Krazy-Glew) (10/05/89)
Related to, but distinct from the TeX vs. EQN war: does anyone know of
a way to get TeX runnable on an Epson RX-80 with graphics mode?
Ideally, ASCII only - ie. is there an nroff-like version of TeX?
--
Andy "Krazy" Glew, Motorola MCD, aglew@urbana.mcd.mot.com
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. {uunet!,}uiucuxc!udc!aglew
My opinions are my own; I indicate my company only so that the reader
may account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.