Anonymous user
Talk:Deconvolution/1D: Difference between revisions
→Method is mandatory ?: This isn't a "particular method" task
No edit summary |
(→Method is mandatory ?: This isn't a "particular method" task) |
||
Line 10:
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)
| |||