4 ms·
Far from impossible, it's even reasonably intutitive. Wikipedia has an excellent graphic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fourier_transform_time_and_frequency
by lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
Far from impossible, it's even reasonably intutitive. Wikipedia has an excellent graphic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fourier_transform_time_and_frequency_domains_%28small%29.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fourier_transform_time_an....
Then for people for which that's too abstract, I find this graphic helps a lot in explaining. http://static.nautil.us/1635_42a3964579017f3cb42b26605b9ae8ef.png http://static.nautil.us/1635_42a3964579017f3cb42b26605b9ae8e...
You picked a really bad example for the unintutiveness of mathematics.
- occamrazor 11y agoI'd suggest most of homological algebra as an example. It's called "abstract nonsense" for a reason. Personally, my intuition gives up at spectral sequences.
- BurritoAlPastor 11y agoSpeaking in my capacity as a person who doesn't understand Fourier transforms, I'm afraid I have to say that your "intuitive" graphics are anything but. I can't even make sense of your second graphic. Just a data point for you.
- lordCarbonFiber 11y agoFair enough, it works a lot better as a gif. Out of curiosity, does this clear things up, or just as confusing? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Fourier_series_square_wave_circles_animation.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Fourier_...
- BurritoAlPastor 11y agoOooh. Yes, actually; I think I have an idea about what's going on (and why they're so damn useful) now. Thank you!