|
From: Andrew J. <a.h...@gm...> - 2006-01-27 08:07:52
|
Dear Warren, > > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Andrew Jaffe wrote: > >> Andrew Jaffe wrote: >>> If I start with what I thought was an appropriate (n, n/2+1) complex >>> matrix which should have a real inverse fft, and then take its real fft, >>> I don't get back the original matrix. >>> >>> Note the presence of very small but nonzero reals in the final matrix, > > That's just roundoff. > >>> and the fact that the 2d and 4th rows are duplicates. This seems to be a >>> mistake somewhere. >>> >>> Or am I just misunderstanding/misremembering something about 2d real ffts? > > It looks wrong to me, and I think I wrote those functions. I get the same > results in Numeric. I'll try to look into the problem. > >> and I should point out that >> delta_rp = N.dft.real_fft2d(delta_kp) >> is 'allclose' to the original delta_r (which leads me to believe that I >> may indeed be misunderstanding something). > > "Stable" does not neccessarily imply "correct". Indeed! And more to the point, it's actually the case that "delta_kp" doesn't actually have the requisite 16 (non-small) real degrees of freedom -- so it can't really be right. Andrew |