Tuesday, September 5, 2017

fourier transform - Relationship Between Sampled Continuous and Discrete Time Signals


Consider the sketched system below. $x_c(t)$ is an arbitrary, continuous-time signal at the input and $s(t)$ is an impulse train, defined as $s(t)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(t-nT)$, where T is the sampling period. Hence:


$$ x_s(t) = x_c(t)s(t)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x_c(nT)\delta(t-nT) $$


Now I calculate and compare the fourier transform of $x_s(t)$ and $x_c(nT)$.


$$ X_s(j\Omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x_s(t)e^{-j\Omega t}dt=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x_c(nT)\delta(t-nT)e^{-j\Omega t}dt=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}x_c(nT)e^{-j\Omega nT} $$


$$ X(e^{j\omega})=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x[n]e^{-j\omega n} $$


The results look quite similar. In fact, they are equal if $\omega=\Omega T$.


The calculation is no problem, but the issue I have is understanding what this really means. So obviously it is a scaling. If I define the angular frequency as $\Omega_s=\frac{2\pi}{T}$ and plug it into the above formula for $\omega$, I get $\omega_s=2\pi$. So it seems that through the process of discretization the actual frequency information is lost and the fourier transform goes from 0 to $2\pi$. In order to retrieve the information, I need to multiply $\omega$ with the sampling frequency. Is this statement correct? Why does this actually happen? What meaning is behind this? Probably I am missing an obvious thing, I feel like missing the forest for the trees.



enter image description here



Answer



You've shown that the (continuous-time) Fourier transform (CTFT) of a sampled continuous-time signal equals the discrete-time Fourier transform (DTFT) of the corresponding discrete-time signal. In both cases, the spectrum is periodic. The independent variables are related by


$$\omega=\Omega T\tag{1}$$


where $\Omega$ is the angular frequency ($\Omega=2\pi f$), $T=1/f_s$ is the sampling period ($f_s$ is the sampling frequency), and $\omega$ is the normalized angular frequency, which is often used as the independent frequency variable when describing spectra of discrete-time signals. Note that you could also use $\Omega$ as the independent variable for discrete-time signals, but it always appears together with the sampling interval $T$. This is an important property of sampled or discrete-time signals, and that's also why the two variables $\Omega$ and $T$ are commonly combined into a single variable $\omega=\Omega T=2\pi f/f_s$.


Note that sampling results in a periodization of the spectrum, and this is why information can be lost. This is true for both spectra $X_s(j\Omega)$ and $X(e^{j\omega})$. The periodicity of the spectra implies that the fundamental frequency interval $f\in [-f_s/2,f_s/2]$, or, equivalently, $\Omega\in [-\pi/T,\pi/T]$ or $\omega\in [-\pi,\pi]$ contains all information of the sampled signal, and all frequencies outside that interval are redundant. This is an inherent property of sampled (or discrete-time) signals, and it is the cause of aliasing, i.e. the mapping of different continuous-time signals to the same sampled signal.


Monday, September 4, 2017

shabbat - Source for heter for making tea on Shabbos



There appear to be a few issues with brewing tea on Shabbos, some of which have already been discussed here:



  1. Kli Sheini and Kli Shlishi (see here and here)

  2. Kalei Bishul

  3. A heter from Rav Moshe


I'm not sure how all those come together to form the opinion (for which I do not know the source) that brewing tea on Shabbos is allowed. Could someone explain to me where the heter comes from?



Answer



Rabbi Soloveichik -- tea is like the spices discussed in the Mishna in Shabbos, a kli sheni doesn't cook them. Therefore, pour the hot water into your cup, then insert tea bag. Kli sheni, you're fine.


Rabbi Moshe Feinstein -- the Mishnah only discusses kli sheni; kli shlishi doesn't cook. So pour water from pot into cup 1, then cup 2, then insert tea bag.



Is that what you were looking for?


history - When did people stop wearing Tefilin all day?



At what point in history did most religous people stop wearing Tefilin all day?



Answer



It's not clear. Of course even today there are a few rare people who do so.


The Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim 37:2 brings that it no longer the custom because of the difficulties of maintaining the proper focus and self-control all day, so by then (mid 1550's) it was clearly not the typical practice.


In Halacha 25 of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah Tefillin, Mezuzah, v'Sefer Torah Chapter 4 ..."a person should try to wear [tefillin] throughout the entire day, for this is the mitzvah associated with them."


The implication of "a person should try" is that this was no longer a universal custom but still something one should do if possible. He also brings down that Rav was praised for always wearing Tefillin. We don't tend to praise people for doing something that everybody does.


The notes on the page I linked to mention the following:


"the Hagahot Maimoniot relates in the name of Rav Amram Gaon:


We saw the Geonim, the heads of the court, and the giants of the previous generations... who would not remove their tefillin until after... the Shema of the evening service." Which implies that during the time of the Gaonim only the leading Torah scholars followed this practice.


I would suppose that the practice of wearing Tefillin all day slowly died out over time until sometime during the era of the Rishonim when even Gedolim no longer followed it.



shabbat - Kosel after Candle Lighting


I noticed that in Israel many women accompany their husbands' in taxis to the Kosel after they already lit the Shabbos Candles. Is this permissible? And if so, why (or how)?



Answer



When they light candles they have in mind not to be Mekabel Shabbos until the Zeman.


etymology - Superdry. 極度乾燥(しなさい)



How did this brand name Superdry. 極度乾燥(しなさい) come about? Is there any deep consideration behind it? Are the customers having some thoughts?





hebrew - Why is a patach chet at the end of the word pronounced "sdrawkcab" (backwards)?


It seems that all Hebrew words that have a vowel under the letter are pronounced with the letter ("consonant") followed by the vowel. The only exception that I can think of is when a patach is underneath a chet at the end of a word such as in the word נֹח. The word is pronounced noach, not nocha.


The vowel sound is pronounced before the consonant. Why is this an exception?


(This question is applicable to Torah reading, so I'm not intending this as a loose question about the Hebrew language.)



Answer




Essentially there should be no vowel, but for certain guttural consonants (specifically, Hei, Chet, and Ayin) it's hard to end a word like that ("NoH"?), so an extra half-vowel is placed before the final consonant. This is not a full Patach, but a half-vowel (not unlike how a Shva Na' isn't counted as a syllable) known as a "furtive Patach" or "פתח גנובה". In classical texts, the Patach is actually written a bit before the letter to indicate this. From Devarim 29:22 in the Aleppo Codex:


example text from aleppo codex deu 29:22


Sunday, September 3, 2017

parshanut torah comment - Zombie Midianites?


In Numbers 31, the Jews wipe out Midyan. I'd think this referred to only those of Midyan who happened to be defending against the Jews' attack, and not the whole nation, except that even women and boys were killed, who presumably don't go to war. So, seemingly, all of Midyan (except the girls mentioned in verse 18) was wiped out. Yet, we see Midyan fighting again in Judges 6. What gives?




periodic trends - Comparing radii in lithium, beryllium, magnesium, aluminium and sodium ions

Apparently the of last four, $\ce{Mg^2+}$ is closest in radius to $\ce{Li+}$. Is this true, and if so, why would a whole larger shell ($\ce{...