Talk:Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula

message: "Since a random process does not have a Fourier transform, the condition under which the sum converges to the original function must also be different." 
This sentence is both incorrect and on top of that, unclear. "must also be different": different from what?
It is even more striking, that in the next sentence, the autocorrelation is invoked.
To me this is yet again an example of scientific urban legends that infect the minds of our students.
Both Fourier and autocorrelation are just straightforward transforms, subject to a fairly limited
set of assumptions. Of course a signal sampled from a random process can be represented in the Fourier domain. 
Whether that transform yields a meaningful representation is a completely different issue. Note that a process 
cannot have a transform but the signal, that is sampled from it, can. I am not changing the original text.
If there are folks who would agree with me, please take my suggestion as a careful adhortation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.178.72 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boasting claim / suggestive phrasing 

message: #\frac{1}{T} = f_s = 2W\,      Less is more.  E.g., the article could easily do without W\,.
#Also, the figure introduces f_N\,, which is never mentioned in the text.
#The formula is actually derived (two different ways) at Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.
:--Bob K 08:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive dependent parameters 

message: At [ Interpolation_as_convolution_sum], the result:
:{T \over 2} \mathrm{rect}(fT)\,
should be:
:T \mathrm{rect}(fT)\,
--Bob K 18:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect formula 

message: The section entitled "Stationary Random Processes" is too technical, and should be updated.  Definition of (or link to) \ell^p should be included. --Chrismurf 19:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "technical" tag after adding the requested link and a few words of explanation.  More suggestions for things to try to clarify are welcome. Dicklyon 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks - definitely better.  It's still pretty technical/dense, but such is the field.  I'm afraid I'm not qualified/capable of making it any better than it is now (if in fact there's even anything wrong with how it is now).  The added link helps.
Chrismurf 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not true.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical?

message: The lead was confusing the interpolation formula with the sampling theorem.  The interpolation formula stands on its own, and will always give a bandlimited function from a set of samples.  The sampling theorem is a major application of the formula.  Let's not mix them up. Dicklyon (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised the lead

message: Would anyone would like to show another approach for it?
Using Sinc orthogonal properties and showing X(nT) as their inner dot product result?
--Drazick (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it. The orthogonality is shortly mentioned at sinc function, but not the consequence of this formula being an orthogonal development of bandlimited functions or the shifted sinc's being a Hilbert basis of this subspace of bandlimited functions.--LutzL (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would happily do it. I know the process well. Yet I'm not a Mathematician hence it would be better if someone will run over my work  to make sure everything is as accurate as it should be.--Royi A (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Calculating The Coefficients

message: The "conditions" were stated as a pair of two necessary conditions, in a form that didn't make any sense.  I changed it to one sufficient condition (express with the AND of two parts), which is what the sampling theorem implies.  If more than this is provable, we change it.  I think it's the case that there's a condition where no such bandlimit B exists, yet the reconstruction is exact.  For example, if the spectrum is a triangle that goes to zero at W, and the function is sampled at fs = 2W, I believe the reconstruction will be exact, even though there's no bandlimit B less than W. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditions were flaky 

message: Someone should provide some specific examples of using this process.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.77.61 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples