Talk:Rectangular function
Appearance
A perfect example of a rectangular function that I think should be added is:
- We already have a much simpler perfect example. Less is more. --Bob K 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nope. — Omegatron 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I going mad, or is the definition of this simple function just completely wrong? Shouldn't it be
R(x) = 0, if x < -1/2
R(x) = 1, if -1/2 <= x <= 1/2
R(x) = 0, if x > 1/2
????— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.107.11 (talk)
- Please sign your entries with "~~~~"
- Is it the values at x = ± ½ that you are concerned about? --Bob K 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am used to seeing this definition in the literature:
- I am used to seeing this definition in the literature:
- Though I have also seen the current definition (). I just added in a short blurb about the various definitions. --Rabbanis 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the "As long as the function is motivated by the time-domain experience of it..." clause. I thought it contains insight but I could be mistaken. 77.30.95.216 (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)