Talk:Harmonic analysis

Untitled
See note on Talk:Pontryagin duality on plans for this page, probably to be implemented in the next week. AndrewKepert 01:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Merging with Fourier Analysis
Whether or not this page is going to be merged with fourier analysis, please note that the article for Non-sinusoidal waveforms has a link that says "Fourier Analysis" but is actually a link to "Harmonic Analysis"


 * It seems appropriate to keep harmonic analysis separate from fourier analysis. Although they have a significant overlap, harmonic analysis could also include wavelet analysis and other generalized representations. Willem 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article, as currently written, fails to present harmonic analysis in anything except a very basic, naive form. See the above comment (from 2003) about Pontryagin duality as an example of what is missing from this page. (OK, so Pontryagin duality is roughly speaking a fourier transform in a general setting) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Applications to neuroscience ?
Quoting : "In the past two centuries, it has become a vast subject with applications in areas as diverse as signal processing, quantum mechanics, and neuroscience." Could someone expand on the applications to neuroscience ? It sound very interesting. Thanks. zermalo (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

harmonics
can somebody make a list of harmonics corresponding to various groups. in the book commutative harmonic analysis, it is said that various groups correspond with various transforms, like the mellin transform beyond fourier transforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.162.155 (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right; this article as currently written is fundamentally flawed. This needs fixing. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

opaque
For whom are these Mathematics pages intended?

Do you have any idea how totally opaque they are to anyone who is not at least a Math graduate student? Wikipedia was supposed to be a resource for all netizens, but it appears to have been hijacked by Math pedants.

If this is how things are going to be, can we have at least have links to pages for those of us more interested in applications than in proofs?

Hsfrey (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This characterization of harmonic analysis isn't accurate at all
This page seems to be reading too much into the word "harmonic" in the name of the field. While it is true that a common tool is studying functions in the frequency domain, it is silly to suggest that harmonic analysts study the Fourier transform itself. In fact many current areas of research in harmonic analysis don't have any direct connection to Fourier analysis at all. See the introduction in this article: https://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/preprints/Expository/harmonic_survey.pdf by Terence Tao, perhaps the leading name in the field today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.178.172 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree 1000% Back when I last read about harmonic analysis, the text as I recall presented it as eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on symmetric spaces, (or is that potential theory?) so this article as currently written is kind of a punch in the face. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to work on an article like this where so much is stated without reference to a source. The list of sources is only semi-useful. So, yes, it's start class and needs work to move to class C or better. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)