INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: z.twelve on July 21, 2007, 03:22:47 AM
-
Ok, I want you to meet Ed.
Ed is a fuckwit who sticks and lights firecrackers in his anus and also happens to have a penchant for spamwhoring on message boards, even though he has the choice not to.
(http://www.craponthegrill.com/images/tard_j.jpg)<----Fuckwit
Your challenge should you choose to accept it, is to abstain indefinately from fuckwittery in this thread.
The game is simple. Post a question to something you have been wondering about but don't know the answer.
For example:
-Why do buses and trucks normally run on diesel while cars run on petrol?
-What is a subpoena?
These questions are quite simple though you are free to ask more difficult questions.
Rules:
1. No fuckwittery
2. No spamwhoring (see 1.)
3. Ask a factual question that has a known answer. If you don't know if the answer is known or not but within reason you think it would be factual then ask it anyway.
4. Quote the original question while giving the answer.
5. Anyone is free to ask a question, anyone is free to answer one (provided they give the attempt to give the correct answer.)
6. Deliberately exploiting loopholes in these rules will be considered fuckwittery (see 1.)
Definition of spamwhore in the context of this thread:
One who posts impetuously
or does not answer questions directly
or goes off on tangents
or adds superfluous unneccesary dialogue to the thread thereby watering down the Q&A session.
Etc!
This has the *potential* to be an interesting thread that expands users general knowledge just by browsing through.
Alright Go! And don't be like Ed, you have been challenged!
-
Is this the best you can contribute?
-
And the word is indefinitely....not indefinately.
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
Because they feel sorry for us and want to start exciting threads like this....but because we are so boring, we don't get how exciting and cool they are for starting such an exciting and engaging topic of conversation.
Like, I enjoy being retarded if this is the best they can come up with.
ZTwelve...is that your name because you are twelve years old?
I'd suggest you spend some more time here before you start with the shit boy.
-
chris lynam used to stick fireworks up his arse and light them, with malcolm hardee (R.I.P).
i saw them at Glastonbury one year. fucking hilarious!
-
chris lynam used to stick fireworks up his arse and light them, with malcolm hardee (R.I.P).
i saw them at Glastonbury one year. fucking hilarious!
Did he used to spamwhore message boards on his day off too??
-
nah. he isn't a tit, as far as i can tell.
-
I have a hole in my pants.
-
:LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:
fuckin' 'ell - i've just howled, literally!
:LMAO:
:plus:
-
I have a hole in my pants.
:LMAO:
*braces to deliver staggeringly intense question*
Is it in the front or the back?
-
depends where he stuck the firework.
:LMAO:
-
Is this the best you can contribute?
You would have said this no matter what I started, your response does not suprise me.
And the word is indefinitely....not indefinately.
Yeah, yeah get over it.
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
I just actively tried to make it more interesting (to me and others). Which is more than can be said for a lot of people.
ZTwelve...is that your name because you are twelve years old?
Again you are blindingly creative.
Meh.
-
If the sun goes supernova and destroys the earth, what happens to all the vampires and spectres? Do they just float around and haunt outer space?
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
I just actively tried to make it more interesting (to me and others). Which is more than can be said for a lot of people.
But why bother putting in the effort if this site is as much of a lost cause as you seem to be suggesting it is?
-
What does the true count have to be in order to stand with 16 against the dealers T ? (assuming Las Vegas rules.)
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
I just actively tried to make it more interesting (to me and others). Which is more than can be said for a lot of people.
But why bother putting in the effort if this site is as much of a lost cause as you seem to be suggesting it is?
You're wrong ... it should be "why the FUCK..."
:plus:
-
:laugh:
-
6. Deliberately exploiting loopholes in these rules will be considered fuckwittery (see 1.)
Fuck.
3. Ask a factual question that has a known answer. If you don't know if the answer is known or not but within reason you think it would be factual then ask it anyway.
Known to who?
Cause I would like to know how to find both the position and velocity of a particle. How about I ask, is there a theoretical method anyone has come up with to define both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle? Even if it isn't currently possible or exactly known?
-
What's the point? www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
-
will google be able to find my bra? or is that a different thread?
i'm confused... :'(
-
will google be able to find my bra? or is that a different thread?
i'm confused... :'(
I think if a man was googling you, he'd certainly be happy you'd lost your bra!
-
will google be able to find my bra? or is that a different thread?
i'm confused... :'(
I once was trying to remember a dream I had the night before, without thinking I went to the computer loaded google and nearly started to look it up. I then realized that there probably isn't a website that chronicles my dreams. Also, if there is, I don't think I want to see it.
Your bra is in the northwest corner of your bedroom, under the purple thing.
-
will google be able to find my bra? or is that a different thread?
i'm confused... :'(
I once was trying to remember a dream I had the night before, without thinking I went to the computer loaded google and nearly started to look it up. I then realized that there probably isn't a website that chronicles my dreams. Also, if there is, I don't think I want to see it.
Your bra is in the northwest corner of your bedroom, under the purple thing.
Ahhh, I did that at work once searching for a document. I fucking pulled up google! :laugh: Thankfully no one was around!
-
What's the point? www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
+
Suspension of fuckwittery, twelve-year-old nobody? My ass.
-
What is the exact dimension of the universe ?
-
Where is the Core of Life so I can assimilate it, therefore becoming God incarnate?
-
Where is the Core of Life so I can assimilate it, therefore becoming God incarnate?
/me quakes in fear. :o
-
Where is the Core of Life so I can assimilate it, therefore becoming God incarnate?
/me quakes in fear. :o
Maybe the Buddhists have it. They always act so damn neutral as if they're hiding summat.
-
will google be able to find my bra? or is that a different thread?
i'm confused... :'(
I think if a man was googling you, he'd certainly be happy you'd lost your bra!
lol. useless trying to google me - you get some boring shit about a tapestry (nothing to do with me) and some other guff.
will google be able to find my bra? or is that a different thread?
i'm confused... :'(
I once was trying to remember a dream I had the night before, without thinking I went to the computer loaded google and nearly started to look it up. I then realized that there probably isn't a website that chronicles my dreams. Also, if there is, I don't think I want to see it.
Your bra is in the northwest corner of your bedroom, under the purple thing.
lol !
"that purple thing" is the wall. :laugh:
(i checked anyway - not there :'( ).
-
Where is the Core of Life so I can assimilate it, therefore becoming God incarnate?
/me quakes in fear. :o
Maybe the Buddhists have it. They always act so damn neutral as if they're hiding summat.
If Buddhists in England start getting cannibalized,
we'll know who's at fault.
-
Where is the Core of Life so I can assimilate it, therefore becoming God incarnate?
/me quakes in fear. :o
Maybe the Buddhists have it. They always act so damn neutral as if they're hiding summat.
If Buddhists in England start getting cannibalized,
we'll know who's at fault.
Better than to be some generic worker at Tescos.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v108/keighleymd/buddy20christ.jpg)
-
Can someone explain to me why we can't find both the position and the velocity of a subatomic particle? If our observation of one changes the other, couldn't we figure out how our observation changes the other, and by how much, and then just correct our measurement?
-
Can someone explain to me why we can't find both the position and the velocity of a subatomic particle? If our observation of one changes the other, couldn't we figure out how our observation changes the other, and by how much, and then just correct our measurement?
And how would we do that?
-
Can someone explain to me why we can't find both the position and the velocity of a subatomic particle? If our observation of one changes the other, couldn't we figure out how our observation changes the other, and by how much, and then just correct our measurement?
Wave Particle Duality, I think basically the particle is both a wave and a particle if that makes sense? Also to measure velocity you would have to take two positions of a particle to do so, which if you cant take a single position you cant find the velocity.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
-
fair enough.
so, have you ever been laid?
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
Well, i have no idea what you mean by similar fashion to Bayesian stats used in GPS.
The Kalman filter is as highly dependant on the initial estimate as of the state variables.
Given poor level of initial conditions or information, it does not matter how efficient your filter is you are not going to get any convergence. ie. decent predicition, without the initial predictor being within a certain boundary.
If this is the case, then the Kalman filter is only really measuring parameters rather than predicting, and once these parameters are estimated within what you called a level of accuracy, then we are back to how good your initial prediction is, in deciding how effective the filter is.
This is my initial question.
ie. Why bother with the filter, and just concentrate on the estimator ?
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
Well, i have no idea what you mean by similar fashion to Bayesian stats used in GPS.
The Kalman filter is as highly dependant on the initial estimate as of the state variables.
Given poor level of initial conditions or information, it does not matter how efficient your filter is you are not going to get any convergence. ie. decent predicition, without the initial predictor being within a certain boundary.
If this is the case, then the Kalman filter is only really measuring parameters rather than predicting, and once these parameters are estimated within what you called a level of accuracy, then we are back to how good your initial prediction is, in deciding how effective the filter is.
This is my initial question.
ie. Why bother with the filter, and just concentrate on the estimator ?
I assume the filter helps the estimator stage, maybe the algorithms cannot be applied directly.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
Well, i have no idea what you mean by similar fashion to Bayesian stats used in GPS.
The Kalman filter is as highly dependant on the initial estimate as of the state variables.
Given poor level of initial conditions or information, it does not matter how efficient your filter is you are not going to get any convergence. ie. decent predicition, without the initial predictor being within a certain boundary.
If this is the case, then the Kalman filter is only really measuring parameters rather than predicting, and once these parameters are estimated within what you called a level of accuracy, then we are back to how good your initial prediction is, in deciding how effective the filter is.
This is my initial question.
ie. Why bother with the filter, and just concentrate on the estimator ?
I assume the filter helps the estimator stage, maybe the algorithms cannot be applied directly.
I have no idea what you mean.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
:laugh:
Well:
1. It's wikipedia. Obviously it has some basis, but i wouldn't regard it as gospell.
2. You would be surprised about the needless shit in some military applications.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
:laugh:
Well:
1. It's wikipedia. Obviously it has some basis, but i wouldn't regard it as gospell.
2. You would be surprised about the needless shit in some military applications.
No they want you to think its needless, maybe it has a function, or the filter doesnt exist at all and its a code for something else...
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
:laugh:
Well:
1. It's wikipedia. Obviously it has some basis, but i wouldn't regard it as gospell.
2. You would be surprised about the needless shit in some military applications.
No they want you to think its needless, maybe it has a function, or the filter doesnt exist at all and its a code for something else...
Well whatever, they used to pay me for the needless shit. That's all i bothered about.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
:laugh:
Well:
1. It's wikipedia. Obviously it has some basis, but i wouldn't regard it as gospell.
2. You would be surprised about the needless shit in some military applications.
No they want you to think its needless, maybe it has a function, or the filter doesnt exist at all and its a code for something else...
Well whatever, they used to pay me for the needless shit. That's all i bothered about.
Lol, they probably knew it was needless, or you wernt working for the top level millatary. They replaced your needless stuff with something else, or adapted it...
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
:laugh:
Well:
1. It's wikipedia. Obviously it has some basis, but i wouldn't regard it as gospell.
2. You would be surprised about the needless shit in some military applications.
No they want you to think its needless, maybe it has a function, or the filter doesnt exist at all and its a code for something else...
Well whatever, they used to pay me for the needless shit. That's all i bothered about.
Lol, they probably knew it was needless, or you wernt working for the top level millatary. They replaced your needless stuff with something else, or adapted it...
that, or used the alien technology.
-
What is the point in a Kalman filter ? Why don't people just come up with a decent estimator in the first place and cut out all the bullshit ?
Lack of computational power or lack of information. In both cases you can only approximate. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
I am aware of wikipedia.
I refer you to the original question. You may assume infinite computational power.
Ok, then the second premise where not all the information is not there, or not to a level of accuracy. A simple example is the Radar, there is always interference with the signal. The filter approximates to find and enemy location, in a similar fashion to the Bayesian stats used in GPS.
i bet it is a very long time before you get laid.
I doubt it McJ, I can get laid when I want to, I have pretty high levels of personal charisma. Bear in mind maths is my specialism really, so I do know the stuff...
I doubt that either personal charisma or maths is your speciality.
Do you see why ?
Maths, I have 2 alevels in it both A's hopefully and am off to take it to degree level probably along with other things. Also I do read quite heavily around the subject.
As for personal charisma, you would be surprised what I have talked to people into over the years, and people do admire and respect me (good ears help in finding out about that one).
The estimations are a process carried out by an approximation algortihm. The filters are needed to clear it up before the algorithm is applied.
Well, that's great news.
I doubt you will do this in a mathematics degree though ( unless you are unlucky, or a big enough idiot to actually choose to).
Anyway, you don't need a 'filter' to 'clear it up' if you have a decent approximation in the first place given the parameters. If the parameters are not accurate due to incomplete information, then all your 'filter' is doing is gaining more information. Which you could just measure anyway.
The state variables are just measurements to calculate parameters for the predictor.
If state variables are accurate then the Kalman filter converges with respect to how good your initial estimator is.
Hence, my question.
Why not put the effort into getting a good predictor, instead of all the bullshit ?
Simple the system works. What would be a new application of your improved system?
As for the maths degree, I am doing Nat Sci with maths modules in it and also CS modules so far, but i can change my mind.
Not without a decent estimator it doesnt, which is my point.
It seems to work well in the applications given in the wikipedia article... Maybe the estimator and the filter work better together, they wouldnt fit it needlessly in a millatary application would they?
:laugh:
Well:
1. It's wikipedia. Obviously it has some basis, but i wouldn't regard it as gospell.
2. You would be surprised about the needless shit in some military applications.
No they want you to think its needless, maybe it has a function, or the filter doesnt exist at all and its a code for something else...
Well whatever, they used to pay me for the needless shit. That's all i bothered about.
Lol, they probably knew it was needless, or you wernt working for the top level millatary. They replaced your needless stuff with something else, or adapted it...
that, or used the alien technology.
lol, the alien technology sounds fun...
-
What's the point? www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
Ed, you are being myopic. Any pea-brained individual can use google. The point is to generate interesting and diverse Q&A within the confines of this thread. It is about sharing ideas between unique individuals that would not otherwise have been thought of by another.
Hooray, someone gets it:
What is the exact dimension of the universe ?
The exact dimension of the universe is only constant for an infinitely short amount of time. Therefore ignoring the fact that it is so vast that the size cannot be measured accurately, it's expansion would render any specific accurate measurement only valid for one particular, infinitely short amount of time. Current scientific estimates place it's volume at somewhere between, "extremely fucking huge" and "abso-fucking-lutely gargantuan".
(http://dumbshit.jpg)
At what age did you first realise you were born without imagination? Oh wait... don't answer that.
To the guys contributing positively, good stuff :asthing:
-
i am a monkey. can i dance for your pleasure?
-
Why is this thread so lame?
-
Why is this thread so lame?
Because it's been spamwhored in. Clearly.
i am a monkey. can i dance for your pleasure?
Only if you want to. Keep hating though I don't care. It's not me who suffers. :)
-
At what age did you first realise you were born without imagination? Oh wait... don't answer that.
Why is it that with your vast imagination the best you could come up with is this thread? :wanker:
-
If I were to find the solid of revolution of half an outline of z.twelves penis, what would the value be? (clue the limits of the integral are irrelvent)
-
What cut of meat from the human body would be most tender?
-
What cut of meat from the human body would be most tender?
the rib?
-
What cut of meat from the human body would be most tender?
the rib?
... as in Eve?
-
What cut of meat from the human body would be most tender?
the rib?
... as in Eve?
yes.
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
well the dude does have eminem in his avatar
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
well the dude does have eminem in his avatar
Izzat whut thaddiz. Hay sed we wuz haitin' , doh. Shucks, we luvvut whun deez slikkers tern up cuz we feal smorter.
hyuck, hyuck ah calld heem a slikker. Caint git morfulla dykk then nat.
:evillaugh:
-
did z twelve find this site to be a little too intense for his/her liking?
-
did z twelve find this site to be a little too intense for his/her liking?
No, not intense enough it seems...
-
Why, is he still posting here?
-
Why, is he still posting here?
He hasnt been online for 2/3 days now.
-
Lol, you guys scared him off.
-
Lol, you guys scared him off.
He ran with his tail between his legs. You are not vaguely thinking of mimicing him, or do you find us a amiable bunch?
-
Lol, you guys scared him off.
Not everyone likes to hang out in a pub with sexually explicit graffiti on the walls.
:evillaugh:
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
well the dude does have eminem in his avatar
Izzat whut thaddiz. Hay sed we wuz haitin' , doh. Shucks, we luvvut whun deez slikkers tern up cuz we feal smorter.
hyuck, hyuck ah calld heem a slikker. Caint git morfulla dykk then nat.
:evillaugh:
you what?
-
Why do antihistamines make you sleepy?
-
Why do antihistamines make you sleepy?
Beccause they dry up your brain.
-
Why do people spend so much time on a site they find boring?
well the dude does have eminem in his avatar
Izzat whut thaddiz. Hay sed we wuz haitin' , doh. Shucks, we luvvut whun deez slikkers tern up cuz we feal smorter.
hyuck, hyuck ah calld heem a slikker. Caint git morfulla dykk then nat.
:evillaugh:
you what?
Remove all but three of your teeth, move to Kentucky, don't move your tongue when you talk and you will sound just like that, even if you are "smort".
</hillbilly bash>
-
ah. would i be right in saying i was probably better off not knowing, do you think? :laugh:
-
ah. would i be right in saying i was probably better off not knowing, do you think? :laugh:
I have no idea what came over me.
::)
Sometimes people just have to duck.
-
/ducks
:laugh:
-
quack?
/waddles around in a circle...
-
quack?
isn't that rather insulting...? i know i don't have a degree but... :laugh: :plus:
-
i was merely trying to avoid interspecies shenanigans, my love. :-*
;)
(how does one say "foom" in Duckish? ??? )
-
(how does one say "foom" in Duckish? ??? )
er, quack? ;D ;)
-
that'll do.. let's go! :cfm:
-
:drool:
-
if you get dribble on my boots, you'll have to clean them... again. :eyebrows:
-
*pateeee-owwing, pateeee-owwing*
I took a couple of "Before" shots, for later.
-
Are you going to be taking "during" shots too??
-
Are you going to be taking "during" shots too??
'fraid they didn't invite me. They also pulled the blinds. Best I can do is a wank or two.
-
patioing? ???
Are you going to be taking "during" shots too??
'fraid they didn't invite me. They also pulled the blinds. Best I can do is a wank or two.
:LMAO:
-
patioing? ???
I used to have some very fancy photographic equipment, but that was a poor attempt to spell the sound of the shutter releasing and the subsequent motor driven advance of the film.
I thought about using "click. click," but assumed it would be misinterpreted as a broken internet link. I rarely do things the easy way.
-
I have a hole in my pants.
is it by your arsehole?
-
It was inexplicably halfway down my leg.
-
It was inexplicably halfway down my leg.
Stop stretching it so much then.
-
::)
-
::)
<snickers>
-
::)
<snickers>
that's what horses do! you mean "sniggers", surely? :P
unless you're going for the "Catherine the Great" thing...? :yikes:
-
::)
<snickers>
that's what horses do! you mean "sniggers", surely? :P
unless you're going for the "Catherine the Great" thing...? :yikes:
did you just confess to getting your love on with horses???
I know how to read between the lines. :o
-
we really must get that squint sorted out for you, chickpea...
:P
-
we really must get that squint sorted out for you, chickpea...
:P
did you just call me a whore??? :o
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
she did.
I don't need you to understand what is funny to me.
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
she did.
I don't need you to understand what is funny to me.
But it might help in our studies.
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
she did.
I don't need you to understand what is funny to me.
But it might help in our studies.
I reject the studies, and eat them.
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
she did.
I don't need you to understand what is funny to me.
But it might help in our studies.
I reject the studies, and eat them.
My poor :snail:
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
she did.
I don't need you to understand what is funny to me.
But it might help in our studies.
I reject the studies, and eat them.
My poor :snail:
mmm...snails.
-
I thought she called you a garbanzo.
she did.
I don't need you to understand what is funny to me.
But it might help in our studies.
I reject the studies, and eat them.
My poor :snail:
mmm...snails.
Before or after use?
-
we really must get that squint sorted out for you, chickpea...
:P
did you just call me a whore??? :o
i dunno - are your payments up to date?