Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a296cbb57d1e1ec6

Jump to content

Talk:Hermitian wavelet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by WroscMPhys in topic Untitled

Untitled

[edit]

You have to describe which kind of normalization you use for these wavelets. Is it the normalization, i.e. or the normalization, i.e.  ?

Is the "probabilists' Hermite polynomials" or the "physicists' Hermite polynomials" used? 155.245.44.87 (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which one is used is only defined by the starting point chosen, both are valid, but not interchangeable within a proof. WroscMPhys (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



I cannot seem to find any sort of mathematical object called a "perfector" anywhere on the internet. anyone else know about it? WroscMPhys (talk) comment added 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Addition to above) I have since found a reference that contains related derivations of both continuous and discrete wavelet transforms and added in the admissibility condition which i believe is what could be meant by perfector? The page needs some work sorting out Discrete proof from continuous proof at the mo.--WroscMPhys (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply