3 ms·
It _is_ the wrong feel for a concept. The analogy breaks down because the color changes are way too wide in frequency (and thus too robust to noise) compared to
by Sesse__ 2y ago
It _is_ the wrong feel for a concept. The analogy breaks down because the color changes are way too wide in frequency (and thus too robust to noise) compared to what happens in a radio broadcast. If you changed the color from RGB(127, 0, 0) to RGB(126.999999, 0.000001, 0), the movement of that tree would actually start to make your strategy difficult.
Going from red to orange is about 50 THz. Typical FM radio modulation width is 100 kHz.
- Workaccount2 2y agoThe analogy isn't wrong, it's just that it is incomplete as given. You are bringing the sensitivity of the receiver into the equation. But it doesn't really break down the analogy, because the frequency shift in color is calibrated for the human eye's sensitivity. Calibrate it for a FM receiver and that tiny color shift becomes easily discernible. The tree leaves have no impact on frequency, just amplitude. The reason the analogy is good is because it isn't even really an analogy, it is in fact a description of electromagnetic waves and a noise source.
- Sesse__ 2y ago> The tree leaves have no impact on frequency, just amplitude. That's an oxymoron, really. Frequency and amplitude are closely interrelated concepts (e.g. see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in the context of signal processing). Frequency-varying and amplitude-varying even more so!