Talk:Continuous wavelet transform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	Start Class	Mid Priority	Field: Applied mathematics
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Explanation in the lead, details in the body of the article would improve the structure. Geometry guy 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple formulations of the continuous wavelet transform and of the resolution of the identity and corresponding admissibility criteria. The two most popular are Goupillaud's and Delprat's. The resolution of the identity is not an "inverse transform". I think the page should mention applications of the CWT and approaches to computation. -- Jon Harrop

"CWT-based time-frequency analysis has many benefits over other time-frequency methods (such as the short-time or windowed Fourier transform, Wigner-Ville and Choi-Williams distributions)." -- Why? This statement has not been supported this entry

My statement requires too much background to clarify in this article so I have added a citation. Jon Harrop 11:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

First, please demonstrate why this particular fact needs citation and how your own thesis as a source would meet WP:A. Femto 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "fact" needs citation because it is being questioned. I'll add references to random other pieces of work that back this up. Jon Harrop 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the deleted citation to one referencing Addison's book. It isn't as good but hopefully it won't get deleted... Jon Harrop 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency with the Wavelet article

Hi, all. Is it ok if I change the notation in the article on continuous wavelet transform to make it consistent with that in the article on wavelets? The symbols used for the location and scale parameters in one article have been swapped with respect to those used in the other. If I don't get replies arguing against the change in a couple of days I'll just go ahead with it, although I am not sure whether this is proper. I will welcome being educated on the correct procedure. Regards, Prsmendonca (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit. It's been a long time since substatial changes have been made in the whole wavelet complex.--LutzL (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the delay. Prsmendonca (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)