3 ms·

Hey guys Author here. Thank you all so much for the reads and suggestions. Just some context because I think the article comes across as me being ignorant of a

Hey guys Author here. Thank you all so much for the reads and suggestions. Just some context because I think the article comes across as me being ignorant of a lot of stuff 1. I am a noob at math and the original paper really did surprise me because I find it weird and interesting that you can morph white noise to be coherent. I am sure to the people who know what they’re doing it seems obvious but it wasn’t to me. 2. The article is simply an explanation of what I think is the reason behind the mechanism as explained in the paper. Of course now I know with the help of all of you that there are better ways of doing things and most of the steps are redundant. I’ll make a revised post with the improvements sometime in the future. Thank you again :)

frumiousirc 5y ago
One thing that gave me pause is calling this "coherent noise". I'm used to "coherency" being a property between two different "channels" or sources of signal. Here, I guess it is being used to mean coherency between the X and Y dimensions. Is that right? If so, I think this is not truly coherent noise but rather mimicry. We see large "patches" in X-Y because the 1/f increases the relative power in lower frequency. It is thus a "natural accident" to have low frequency in X and Y form some patches somewhere. But, it's not a coherent effect. I'd be curious to learn if I'm misunderstanding the use of the term.