Talk:Bilinear time–frequency distribution

Rename?
This comment was just added to the article: "The terminology currently used to refer to these methods is "Quadratic Time-Frequency Distributions" (or "Bilinear Time-Frequency Distributions"), and it is inappropriate to refer to them as simply Coher's class, as this class is too restrictive for the purpose of Time-Frequency Analysis." Does this mean that the article (as it stands) needs to be renamed, or should there be a new one with the present version of this reduced? In any case it is not good to leave comments like this in the article, and rather better to do something about it. Melcombe (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer: yes; I believe that this article should be renamed: "Quadratic Time-Frequency Distributions" (or "Bilinear Time-Frequency Distributions"), as it is a more acceptable terminology; I did not want to do it myself as I was not sure about the rules and whether I have access. I have reviewed it another time and definitely, the new title is more appropriate and a more elegant way to present the material. In addition, I have found exactly where this article should be inserted: it is related to a section of 2 other articles with the following titles: 1) time-frequency representation and 2) time-frequency analysis; I currently do not have the skills to do this and I do not know if I am authorized to do it; I am however one of the recognized pioneers of this field and this is definitely what needs to be done. Boashash (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I have renamed it. I chose "bilinear" as the form looks more blinear than quadratic. There are standards in Wikipedia, whereby capital letters are avoided except for people or place names, or things derived from these. This has affected the new title, and I have also repaced (most of) these in the article. It is good to have some progress with this article, and you might like to also look at other articles in Category:Time–frequency analysis. I see from your user page that there have been complaints about your adding references to your own works. I think it would help if you could adopt the approach of adding inline citations as this will make it clear where and how these references are useful. See WP:CITE for info on how to do this (and don't forget to add other people's work where appropriate). You might like to start with this article. Melcombe (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ok; I will take care of this asap and finalize the editing to make further progress, and definitely I will add others references where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boashash (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cohen's class please
Can someone please write something explicitly about Cohen's class in the page, since this is where one ends up when searching for Cohen's class? There's nothing in the content at the moment to actually say whether some or all or none of the topics discussed relate to Cohen's class. Thanks. --mcld (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just did. The entire class of these distributions and their inter-relations is Cohen's class. Of course, the article is hopelessly unfocussed, discursive, and unsystematic; but, at the very least, one is steered on to Cohen's basically serviceable book to crawl out of the mess. Also added wikilink to transformation between distributions in time–frequency analysis, which should really be merged with this one, in an ideal world.... The physics side of these distributions would appreciate a brief Cohen class summary, but not at the price of starting up yet another dangling stub. So, this really appears like the most natural home for Cohen's class summaries and discussions, the above misgivings nothwithstanding. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)