Talk:1-f noise: Difference between revisions
imported>Joseph Rushton Wakeling m (→Pink noise: correction) |
imported>Joseph Rushton Wakeling (Correction.) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Someone shout if there's a problem. Like I said, I'm rusty... :-) —[[User:Joseph Rushton Wakeling|Joseph Rushton Wakeling]] 06:38, 10 February 2007 (CST) | Someone shout if there's a problem. Like I said, I'm rusty... :-) —[[User:Joseph Rushton Wakeling|Joseph Rushton Wakeling]] 06:38, 10 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:Aaahhh. There is an error: one could use ''any'' power of <math>\lambda</math> to give the value of the constant in the equation <math>Z(\lambda f)/Z(f) = K</math>. So you wind up with <math>Z(\lambda f) = \lambda^{n}Z(f)</math>, for arbitrary real <math>n</math>. The linear argument then won't work, but there must be some trick that brings out the more general solution giving us a power spectrum of <math>\frac{\textrm{constant}}{f}</math> instead of straightforward <math>1/f</math>. |
Revision as of 08:04, 26 February 2007
Pink noise
In line with the issue a spectrum satisfies the definition of equal power per octave, I put together a little proof of the converse. It's probably inelegant (my maths is rusty these days....). Anyway, here goes. Let be the integral of the power spectrum. Then, since there is equal power per octave, we must have where is a constant.
If we write , we get , where is constant. Since it's so, and is also a constant, without loss of generality we can write,
So, . Now consider , but also , so , so either (boring, means the signal has no power) or . We are left with,
From which it follows that is a linear function, so we can write with c constant. Substituting into the previous equation, we get,
So, , and so .
It follows that , so
So the differential, which gives us the power spectrum, is .
Someone shout if there's a problem. Like I said, I'm rusty... :-) —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 06:38, 10 February 2007 (CST)
- Aaahhh. There is an error: one could use any power of to give the value of the constant in the equation . So you wind up with , for arbitrary real . The linear argument then won't work, but there must be some trick that brings out the more general solution giving us a power spectrum of instead of straightforward .