* Grant Edwards:
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...
Neither I nor Steve has called that latter wave a square wave.
Steve, quoted above, has written that I defined a square wave that way. I have
not. So Steve's statement is a misrepresentation (I described it as a sum of two
square waves, which it is), whatever the reason for that misrepresentation.
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.
Not by itself, no: it just synthesizes a sine.
For the more general case read e.g. the PS in my reply to your earlier (single)
article in this thread.
For information about what the algorithm does, what you refer to as a "claim"
(but note that a Python implementation has been posted to this thread, and that
it works, and that besides the algorithm is trivial so that "claim" is a rather
meaningless word here), read the article that you then responded to.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
