Re: Confused by FFTW output
From: James Van Buskirk (not_valid_at_comcast.net)
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: stevenj_at_alum.mit.edu: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- Previous message: Martin Brown: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- In reply to: Tom: "Confused by FFTW output"
- Next in thread: Tom: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- Reply: Tom: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:45:21 -0700
"Tom" <flurboglarf@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1110902452.743346.225880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ! signal
> do i=1,n
> t=(i-1)*dt-ttot/2
> sig(i)=exp(-a*t*t)
> write(10,*) i,t,sig(i)
> end do
> ! forward FT
The symmetry requirement should lead to sig(n) == sig(2), because
you used 1-based arrays (you could have used 0-based arrays where
sig(n-1) == sig(1), had you chosen to do so...) Your output to
unit 10 doesn't agree with this, so I tried
! signal
do i=1,n
t=(i-1.5)*dt-ttot/2
sig(i)=exp(-a*t*t)
write(10,*) i,t,real(sig(i))
end do
! forward FT
This has the correct symmetry.
-- write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, & 6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end
- Next message: stevenj_at_alum.mit.edu: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- Previous message: Martin Brown: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- In reply to: Tom: "Confused by FFTW output"
- Next in thread: Tom: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- Reply: Tom: "Re: Confused by FFTW output"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]