Timeline for Help with notations from 2D to 3D FFT representations as 1D FFT
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 7, 2015 at 6:48 | comment | added | Syed Alam Abbas | @ Hurkyl , actually I know how to code, so I already wrote a program to do this 3D fft interms of 1D fft. But its when you start to follow those conventions and try to formulate it in math the confusion arises. For 2D its different , the way we index an array is exactly how I am writing equations. But for 3D it gets confusing, at least for me :) | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 5:55 | comment | added | user13113 | Your question really looks like you're more confused about your data structures than you are about FFTs. | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 3:30 | answer | added | Syed Alam Abbas | timeline score: -1 | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 7:38 | comment | added | Syed Alam Abbas | Thanks Carlo. But there in lies my confusion of the answer, can I now write things more differently like this, to get $F_x$ I will sum over first argument (instead of second according to matrix indexes), $F_y$ over second and $F_z$ over third, will that be more consistent and correct ? This is confusing since I couldn't find this type of notation in any text, etc. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 7:04 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | your choice (iii) is correct, to get $F_x$ you sum over the second argument, to then get $F_{xy}$ you sum over the first argument, and then to get $F_{xyz}$ you still need to sum over the third argument. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 7:03 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | The M.SE question was asked on 31 August. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 5:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 4, 2015 at 7:29 | |||||
| Sep 4, 2015 at 5:29 | history | asked | Syed Alam Abbas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |