Talk:Time–frequency representation

WikiProject Statistics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 Start Class
 Mid Importance
Field:  Probability and statistics

Whoever created this page did a nice job. Solid information and well written. jeffo 14:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Examples, formulas, and perhaps sample images would be of benefit. The article in its current form seems to appeal mostly to people already familiar with the subject. A good start, though. Rethunk 20:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this page. Thanks. I put a lot of time and effort into writing a thorough introduction to the subject in [http:// www.ffconsultancy.com/free/thesis.pdf my PhD thesis]. I also contributed significantly to research in this area (see the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet) and commercialized my work in the form of [http:// www.ffconsultancy.com/products/CWT/ a Mathematica add-on]. If you want to do time-frequency analysis accurately, the maths gets very hard very quickly. So I'm not sure it belongs on Wikipedia. Maybe a cutdown version based on Gabor/Morlet would be ok. Jon Harrop 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Empty Set

If I am not mistaken, the set ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}}$ in the paragraph named Quadratic forms is always convex as it is always empty. I do not the correct version of this statement, I am guessing that it should read something like If for every ${\displaystyle T\in [0,E_{0}]}$ the set ${\displaystyle \{(t,f)\in \mathbb {R} ^{2}:|E(t,f)|>T\}}$ is convex, then the QTFR ${\displaystyle E(t,f)}$ is cross-term free.

46.142.36.29 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, the set ${\displaystyle \{(t,f)\in \mathbb {R} ^{2}:|E(t,f)|>T,\,\forall T\in [0,E_{0}]\}}$ is always empty since ${\displaystyle |E(t,f)|\leq E_{0}=\sup E(t,f)}$. I don't know what the correct version is, and I wasn't able to find it in Jon Harrop's thesis, but I think your suggestion of pulling the "for every ${\displaystyle T\in [0,E_{0}]}$" out of the set comprehension is the most sensible thing to do. -- Tuckerleavitt (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)