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