Hi Michael,
On 06/25/2013 12:07 PM, Michael Moers wrote:
Hi Hervé,
thank you for the link, I like the convolve2() function, it is
definitely a more user-friendly version of convolve().
I still believe that convolve() would be worth improving for the R stats
package, since it is pretty importan
Hi Hervé,
thank you for the link, I like the convolve2() function, it is
definitely a more user-friendly version of convolve().
I still believe that convolve() would be worth improving for the R stats
package, since it is pretty important in signal processing. I think it
would be great to ha
Hi Michael,
There are many issues with stats::convolve() that hopefully one day
will be addressed. Full story here:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2007-February/044529.html
The user shouldn't have to worry about the lengths of the arguments:
convolve() should take care of doing the ze
Hi,
the function stats::convolve does not mention efficient usage of the
underlying FFT algorithm, such as
(a) if type="circular", then length(x)=length(y) should have many
factors (e.g. length(x) = length(y) = 2^n)
(b) if type="open" or "filter", then length(x)+length(y)-1 should have
many fa
