|
|
...
Posted:
Apr 17, 2012 2:37 PM
|
|
On Apr 17, 1:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone who says deconvolution isn't complicated demonstrably does not
> > > have the first clue about the subject of signal processing. Convolution
> > > is easy but deconvolution is usually a very difficult inverse problem.
> > Well, linear deconvolution isn't complicated,
>
> But, hey, a dunce wanted to sound like he knew something about math.
>
We get it, you are a genius, and everyone else are dunces.
> > but it also often
> > gives less than useful results.
>
> And it often gives useful results.
>
> In any event, from the beginning the complete process of recovering
> the original signal should have been considered.
>
> Apparently this is something new as well as easy.
>
> Bret Cahill
|
|
