> >>>>>> Do you mean matched filtering or is "match" filtering something > >>>>>> different? > > >>>>> North filter. > > >>>> Far more commonly known as a "matched filter", > > >>> How long did it take you to figure that out? > > >>>> which requires no > >>>> special kind of convolution, only the ordinary, mundane kind. There's > >>>> no deconvolution involved. > > >>> How is the original waveform recovered with a North Filter? > > >> Bret, can you stick with the common semantic? before today, i have > >> never heard of a "North filter". > > > Is anyone still whining about "match filter" or "matched filter", both > > of which google up tens of thousands of on point hits in less time > > than it takes to play trifling word games. > > >> i am assuming from Eric's response and > >> yours, that it is synonymous with "matched filter". > > >> a matched filter is not about recovering an original waveform. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter > > > Scroll down to the match filter recovery of the binary signal > > it's about detection.
In that example the "detection" of the signal requires recovering the original waveform.
> if you think that example is about producing a > signal, rather than determining if a 0 or 1 had been transmitted, then > you're mistaken.
You think any convolution of a square wave form with its kernel could look like _that_?
> also, Wikipedia should not be taken as authoritative
You think an authoritative article is necessary for an _example_?
Maybe you think the author put that nonsense in because he wanted to help out anyone trying to mislead on how match filtering can be used for wave form recovery?