Skip to main content
Signal Processing

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Questions soliciting personal opinions are not really constructive for this site. The answer is that it really does not matter what your convention is, as long as you're defining it correctly, using it consistently and in a lot of cases, are sticking to the common notation used in your field. The important thing is to not invent crazy new notations to be intentionally obtuse. I'm not sure how personal preferences and opinions are useful in any of this... $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2011 at 20:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I can understand the desire to avoid mere opinion, but I do think there is a legitimate question as to why traditional conventions are what they are: it is unlikely that they are defined only as historical accidents. I would be willing to rewrite this question to avoid soliciting opinions, and to focus on the question of how these decisions of convention/notation in signal processing literature came about in the first place. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2011 at 20:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You forgot to replace all the 2π with τ. :D $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2011 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @endolith You beat me to it :) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2011 at 21:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One place where the unitary form is often used is in communications textbooks. Communications engineers like Hertz, so $x(t)$ transforming to $X(f)$ is more intuitive than to $X(\omega)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 1, 2011 at 3:22