Convolution Tutorial
in [DSP]
|
Prev: forward error correction capabilities?
Next: Position estimation using tri-axis accelerometer with gyroscope in Static standing
From: Randy Yates on 31 Dec 2009 12:49 Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> writes: > Randy Yates wrote: >> Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> writes: >>> [...] >>> Relying on a large brittle flange extending out from a stress raiser >>> (abrupt change in section) is an engineering sin you wouldn't commit. >> >> So when you asked the question, "Why are manhole covers round?", you >> expected the answer to be based on such knowledge of materials? > > The expected answer is "So they don't fall through." Knowledge of > materials is needed only to deal with nitpicking. :-) > > This was dealt with here before. I don't think it has yet been dealt with properly until now. See my recent (like, 2 minutes ago) post to Muzaffer Kal. -- Randy Yates % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit Digital Signal Labs % on, and she's also a telephone." mailto://yates(a)ieee.org % http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
From: Eric Jacobsen on 31 Dec 2009 13:12 On 12/31/2009 10:13 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On Dec 31, 8:48 am, Jerry Avins<j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > ... >> What I intended as an allusion became instead a discussion. > > that's what happened to this whole friggin' thread. note the Subject: > header. It has, in fact, become convoluted. >> Happy New Year! Likewise to everybody! > i dunno. instead of seeing an Old Man 2009 going out and the Baby > 2010 coming in, i think what i see is the Old Man holding a condom > with attached label "2010". > > such as it is. Happy New Year (i'll be accompanying my kids to > "Burlington First Night", also, coincidentally, i turn 54 tomorrow, > big fat hairy deal.) > > r b-j Happy b-day, dood! -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
From: Muzaffer Kal on 31 Dec 2009 15:31 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:49:41 -0500, Randy Yates <yates(a)ieee.org> wrote: >Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> writes: > >> Randy Yates wrote: >>> Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> writes: >>>> [...] >>>> Relying on a large brittle flange extending out from a stress raiser >>>> (abrupt change in section) is an engineering sin you wouldn't commit. >>> >>> So when you asked the question, "Why are manhole covers round?", you >>> expected the answer to be based on such knowledge of materials? >> >> The expected answer is "So they don't fall through." Knowledge of >> materials is needed only to deal with nitpicking. :-) >> >> This was dealt with here before. > >I don't think it has yet been dealt with properly until now. See my >recent (like, 2 minutes ago) post to Muzaffer Kal. On my news server your other post shows cancelled but I was able to see on goups.google.com (did you know that google groups ignores article cancel request even from the original (which actually cannot be verified) author?). My response to your analysis is that your logic although valid is not (necessarily) relevant when posed to a human. Especially in the context of an interview where it's usually raised (hopefully not anymore given that it's been beaten to death here but if someone is reading these groups it shows a special quality useful in an engineer too). It's certainly true that if one had to write an optimization program to search for the optimal cover shape, one would include all the criteria mentioned. Another comment I'd have is that the in-fallibility of covers ;-) was probably the main deciding point for round ones. Because to a human who probably has sub-conscious innovation filtering (in the Kalman sense) built-in, other solutions are sub-optimal without an extensive search so they're probably filtered out before they reach to higher levels. So I think that the answer is still "because they can't fall into their holes" as the people who designed them found that to be the intuitively obvious solution and would reject any other as rightfully inferior solutions. Hopefully one day we can design computers with good judgment built in which would give you round mhcs when asked for ones which can't fall into their own hole and not ask one to select between many feasible options nor ask for more constraints. -- Muzaffer Kal DSPIA INC. ASIC/FPGA Design Services http://www.dspia.com
From: Jerry Avins on 31 Dec 2009 15:44 Muzaffer Kal wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:49:41 -0500, Randy Yates <yates(a)ieee.org> > wrote: > >> Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> writes: >> >>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>> Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>> Relying on a large brittle flange extending out from a stress raiser >>>>> (abrupt change in section) is an engineering sin you wouldn't commit. >>>> So when you asked the question, "Why are manhole covers round?", you >>>> expected the answer to be based on such knowledge of materials? >>> The expected answer is "So they don't fall through." Knowledge of >>> materials is needed only to deal with nitpicking. :-) >>> >>> This was dealt with here before. >> I don't think it has yet been dealt with properly until now. See my >> recent (like, 2 minutes ago) post to Muzaffer Kal. > > On my news server your other post shows cancelled but I was able to > see on goups.google.com (did you know that google groups ignores > article cancel request even from the original (which actually cannot > be verified) author?). > My response to your analysis is that your logic although valid is not > (necessarily) relevant when posed to a human. Especially in the > context of an interview where it's usually raised (hopefully not > anymore given that it's been beaten to death here but if someone is > reading these groups it shows a special quality useful in an engineer > too). > It's certainly true that if one had to write an optimization program > to search for the optimal cover shape, one would include all the > criteria mentioned. > Another comment I'd have is that the in-fallibility of covers ;-) was > probably the main deciding point for round ones. Because to a human > who probably has sub-conscious innovation filtering (in the Kalman > sense) built-in, other solutions are sub-optimal without an extensive > search so they're probably filtered out before they reach to higher > levels. > So I think that the answer is still "because they can't fall into > their holes" as the people who designed them found that to be the > intuitively obvious solution and would reject any other as rightfully > inferior solutions. > Hopefully one day we can design computers with good judgment built in > which would give you round mhcs when asked for ones which can't fall > into their own hole and not ask one to select between many feasible > options nor ask for more constraints. Does anyone remember when Ovaltine cans were oval? Both the containers and the press-in covers were oval. People were always fishing the covers out of the powder. Now the covers are round. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Muzaffer Kal on 31 Dec 2009 16:11
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:44:02 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> wrote: >Muzaffer Kal wrote: .... >> Hopefully one day we can design computers with good judgment built in >> which would give you round mhcs when asked for ones which can't fall >> into their own hole and not ask one to select between many feasible >> options nor ask for more constraints. > >Does anyone remember when Ovaltine cans were oval? Both the containers >and the press-in covers were oval. People were always fishing the covers >out of the powder. Now the covers are round. As they say, common sense is not only not common but not always fully sensible either. But evolution works in mysterious ways so we came down from trees and started making round-hole covered ovaltine cans. Good progress if you ask me. -- Muzaffer Kal DSPIA INC. ASIC/FPGA Design Services http://www.dspia.com |