Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


References in "other discoverers"[edit]

Quoted text goes back to Meijering, for which http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=993400 ist given as URL. This, however, includes different references, so numbering is worng in wikipedia. And worthless as well, as the numbers are not explained/actual references given. 131.234.247.64 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

White washing[edit]

"The name Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem honors Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon. The theorem was also discovered independently by E. T. Whittaker, by Vladimir Kotelnikov, and by others."

Well it wasn't discovered by "others" but 15 years earlier than anybody else by Kotelnikov in 1933. But not worth mentioning it right? Wikipedia rules!--2.242.113.76 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC) --2.242.113.76 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The historical background section goes into a bit more detail on the various inventors/discoverers, dates, etc., and cites secondary sources about the history. I think the guy who really get shortchanged the most is Küpfmüller, 1928. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Ryogo Kubo mentions Nyquist's Thorem already in 1957, which is earlier than the sources provided in the article at the moment (Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, vol 12, no 6, 1957). Dafer45 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in lede[edit]

The lede says "It establishes an upper limit on signal bandwidth or a lower limit on the sample rate that permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information from a continuous-time signal." which suggests a necessary condition. It later says "The theorem does not preclude the possibility of perfect reconstruction under special circumstances that do not satisfy the sample-rate criterion." This seems like a confusion about whether the theorem gives a necessary condition, versus a sufficient condition. The body of the article suggests sufficient, so the lede paragraph probably needs to be edited to reflect that. 2620:0:1000:157D:84A4:C4BB:A81E:EA36 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've copyedited the lead to be more precise. The discrepancy appears to be related to additional constraints on the signal that could be exploited in the reconstruction; the absence of known constraints on the signal other than bandwidth is necessary for the theorem to be applied in the sense of prescribing a necessary condition for perfect reconstruction. —Quondum 18:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I made some more edits to make it more precise by avoid stating a converse, which is not true in general. 2620:0:1000:157D:FC67:567C:2428:191 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I like it. —Quondum 20:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Empty citations in historical background section[edit]

The paragraph on the historical background is full of pseudo LaTeX style citations in brackets that are superfluous because there are no equivalent entries in the references section. Either we remove them entirely, or replace them with <ref>...</ref> citations. Dicklyon (talk · contribs) added this paragraph more than 10 years ago, I hope he can help fix it by adding actual citations. --bender235 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I can get to this, but you can help by saying exactly which citations are messed up or missing, and whether they were in my 10-year-old version or not. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)