On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
> I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is what I
> would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a "pulse
> train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform having a 50% duty
> cycle, as in
>
> ___ ___
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> +---+---+---+---+ and so on ad infinitum, (though I might allow you
> | | | | to adjust the position
> | | | | of y=0 if you want)
> |___| |___|
That is a square wave.
> as opposed to your
>
> _
> | |
> | |
> ______| |______ ______
> | |
> | |
> |_|
That isn't.
Arguing to the contrary is just being Humpty Dumpty...
> Or, best of all, you could show me how to synthesize any
> waveform by adding square waves with a 50% duty cycle. Then I
> *will* be impressed.
Isn't that what he claimed? He said that his algorithm for
summing square waves demonstrated the converse of the ability
to construct a periodic function (like a square wave) from a
sine-cosine summation.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! On the road, ZIPPY
at is a pinhead without a
visi.com purpose, but never without
a POINT.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
