Talk:Gibbs phenomenon

message: :Added title. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've split the longest equation into three pieces; feel free to truncate the others as necessary.  Regarding all the factors of 2, I think I've fixed them all now... Terry 18:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long formulas 

message: :Added title. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No the overshoot does not exist at all in that case. "An infinite sum of continuous functions can be discontinuous" is correctly stated. Cuddlyable3 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that "An infinite sum of continuous functions can be discontinuous" is correct and irrelevant, and more over it doesn't follow from this fact that the infinite sum "does not exhibit the Gibbs phenomenon". In fact, the described phenomenon is a property of the sequence of partial sums and not of it's (pointwise) limit, so there no meaning to the statement that the limit function "does not . It doesn't belong in this article, and if it does, it cannot be phrased by assigning a true or false value to the statement that the limit function "exhibits the Gibbs phenomenon" because this sentence does not accept one of these two values. Hadaso (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hadaso is correct.  I'm changing the wording. JamesCrook (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overshoot in the limit? 

message: The Description section defines the square wave function this way: "More precisely, this is the function f which equals π / 4 between 2nπ and (2n + 1)π and − π / 4 between 2(n + 1)π and 2(n + 2)π for every integer n; thus this square wave has a jump discontinuity of height π / 2 at every integer multiple of π."
I don't think that's quite right.  Shouldn't it be "...  π / 4 between 2nπ and (2n + 1)π and − π / 4 between (2n + 1)π and 2(n + 1)π" ?  DRE 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it.  I've changed it. Michael Hardy 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square Wave Definition 

message: The history section is badly cited and seems a bit off of what I believe are the referenced articles. For one, there is in fact a 1898 letter to the editor by Michelson on the topic in the October 6th, 1898 edition of Nature, but it makes no reference to any graphing machine. Instead it points to the seeming existence of a tangent line to an isolated point in the Fourier expansion of the sawtooth function which to Michelson seems ridiculous. Further, applying the label "paper" to these articles seems a little misleading because the entire back and forth discussion between Michelson, Gibbs, and Love is in the shape of more informal letters to the editor. I hesitate change the section entirely because I'm hoping that someone can get a solid cite for that graphing machine or possibly point to some other papers by them that might have been floating around at this time in some other source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb5 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The animation of the square wave does not work unless you actually go into the link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/SquareWave.gif   Not sure why this is. Nice gif by the way though.
Handsofftibet (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation not working? 

message: Throughout the article, the constant "0.089490..." is used.
I believe that the value given is problematic. 
See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28Si%28Pi%29+-+Pi%2F2%29+%2F+Pi
which produces: 0.0894898722...
Apparently, fifth digit to the right of the decimal point was rounded up.  But the notation used implies that the fifth and sixth digit are respectively 9 and 0 (rather than 8 and 9).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspect All Information (talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be serious. Sixth digit to the right of the decimal point was rounded up, not fifth. 0.0894898722 then becomes 0.089490. Really? It is school level material. 109.252.90.66 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the constant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gibbs phenomenon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130909200315/http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/kelly/Publications/GibbsJan.pdf to http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/kelly/Publications/GibbsJan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040506042335/http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m10092/latest/ to http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m10092/latest/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section History contains this sentence:
"Inspired by correspondence in Nature between Michelson and A. E. H. Love about the convergence of the Fourier series of the square wave function, J. Willard Gibbs published a note in 1898 pointing out the important distinction between the limit of the graphs of the partial sums of the Fourier series of a sawtooth wave and the graph of the limit of those partial sums."
But what exactly does the phrase "the limit of the graphs" means?
It *might* have meant "the graph of the function that is the limit of the functions in the graphs", but this does not appear to be the meaning, since the text makes a distinction between the two things.
So: What does this phrase mean? 2601:200:C000:1A0:20BE:A512:2183:1640 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: User  made an edit which added the following text to the lede's first paragraph:
For a point of discontinuity, as more Fourier series constituents are taken, the first overshoot in the oscillatory behavior around the point approaches ~ 9 % of the discontinuity jump and the oscillation does not disappear but gets closer to the point so that the integral of the oscillation approaches to zero (i.e., zero energy in the oscillation). At the discontinuity point, the Fourier series gives the average of the function's both side limits toward the discontinuity. The Fourier series, if it exists, may uniformly converge to a continuous function while it may pointwisely converge to a function with discontinuities.I ended up deleting it cause I thought it was too much details for the lede's first paragraph.  But it doesn't seem to be a bad explanation.  So maybe that user or someone else can try to incorporate it or part of it in another manner somewhere else in the article. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed edit that added too much to lede.