Anonymous user
Talk:Deconvolution/1D: Difference between revisions
→Method is mandatory ?: This isn't a "particular method" task
(→Pseudo-code please: Ta!) |
(→Method is mandatory ?: This isn't a "particular method" task) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
:: Ta Donal, that was just the start I needed! --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
:: And thanks Sluggo for [[Talk:Deconvolution/2D+#one dimension|this explanation]]. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
==Method is mandatory ?==
I wonder... since the problem is easily solved by FFT, why bother with a linear system ? Solution will be much slower, and may introduce much rounding errors depending on method use for solving the system. I chose the FFT method for the R code. If it's really needed I'll write a "linear system" later... Should not be too difficult with matrix capabilities of R. [[User:Toucan|Toucan]] 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
: The method isn't mandatory (and in fact two different methods are suggested) so I think that showing off how to do it with FFT would be fine, so long as you also explain what it is doing (i.e., act as a guide so that other languages can also adopt the solution). If you could also do the same for the [[Deconvolution/2D+|higher-order case]], that'd be even cooler. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 11:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
|