<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Understanding the Nyquist Limit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/math/understanding-the-nyquist-limit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/math/understanding-the-nyquist-limit/</link>
	<description>Algorithms, for the heck of it</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:07:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ilan</title>
		<link>http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/math/understanding-the-nyquist-limit/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Ilan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/index.php/math/understanding-the-nyquist-limit/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Cute!!!

Hey, Imri, funny lights going in your head, hehehe.
;o)

I just did it the boring way: plotting sample points (in the time domain: -1.0, 1.0, -1.0, 1.0) and, well, it&#039;s just plain obvious that you can&#039;t force a _lower_ frequency sinusoid through these points, exactly two samples per cycle, and somehow it just makes sense (to me) that this is precisely the &quot;amount of information&quot; retained in those sample points, and that they cannot define a higher frequency, either. Hmm? (Perhaps an argument based on symmetry?)

Say, can you relate this curiosity to the ECC theorems/proofs, too? Y&#039;know, error detection and correction codes, Solomon-Reed, de Bruijn sequences, that stuff... oy, I forget my CS (way fascinating, but, eh, never did have the brains for it). Where&#039;s my Wikipedia?!

(I&#039;ve gotta try this Google App Engine toy!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cute!!!</p>
<p>Hey, Imri, funny lights going in your head, hehehe.<br />
;o)</p>
<p>I just did it the boring way: plotting sample points (in the time domain: -1.0, 1.0, -1.0, 1.0) and, well, it&#8217;s just plain obvious that you can&#8217;t force a _lower_ frequency sinusoid through these points, exactly two samples per cycle, and somehow it just makes sense (to me) that this is precisely the &#8220;amount of information&#8221; retained in those sample points, and that they cannot define a higher frequency, either. Hmm? (Perhaps an argument based on symmetry?)</p>
<p>Say, can you relate this curiosity to the ECC theorems/proofs, too? Y&#8217;know, error detection and correction codes, Solomon-Reed, de Bruijn sequences, that stuff&#8230; oy, I forget my CS (way fascinating, but, eh, never did have the brains for it). Where&#8217;s my Wikipedia?!</p>
<p>(I&#8217;ve gotta try this Google App Engine toy!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kirai</title>
		<link>http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/math/understanding-the-nyquist-limit/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>kirai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/index.php/math/understanding-the-nyquist-limit/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>maybe is not rigorous but is the best and simplest Nyquist explanation I&#039;ve ever read. Thanks! and keep up with good work! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>maybe is not rigorous but is the best and simplest Nyquist explanation I&#8217;ve ever read. Thanks! and keep up with good work! :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

