Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 3 August 2006

Archives
Archive to end 1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006

Destabilized

I wish you would have told me before you reverted me, rather than after. Ral315 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have respected your decision a lot more; that's all. I'm bold, but I don't mind being reverted- it's just a personal thing. Ral315 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rayleigh fading

I have been thinking about this for some time...in Rayleigh fading, where you have the model distribution

${\displaystyle p_{R}(r)={\frac {r}{\sigma ^{2}}}e^{-r^{2}/2\sigma ^{2}},\ r\geq {}0\ \ \ \ (1)}$

I wonder if it might be better to define say, ${\displaystyle \Omega =2\sigma ^{2}}$, and set this quantity as the reference total power? After all, the radial distribution arises from the summation of two Gaussians, so, I wonder whether it is necessary that both of these components contribute only half of the total. What do you think? --HappyCamper 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to check with a textbook on that... -Splash - tk 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So your suggestion is the version that Proakis uses directly in the relevant equation (14-1-23 in my 3rd Edition). I wanted to avoid introducing a dummy variable of ${\displaystyle \Omega }$ because it seems to obfuscate things rather. It is a condition of the Rayleigh distribution that the two constituent variables have equal variance (Proakis, p. 45), but I'm not quite sure what question you're asking in that regard.

In eq. (2-1-128), Proakis uses the equation that I preferred in the article and I have just checked my mental arithmetic on that. Using the gamma-function-based expression for ${\displaystyle \mathbb {E} (R^{k})}$ (eq. 2-1-130), I am missing a factor of 1/2 in my definition of ${\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}}$ so that it is really:

${\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}\mathbb {E} (R^{2}),}$

whereas using your ${\displaystyle \Omega }$ as Proakis does later, drops the factor of 2 in exchange for an amended PDF of:

${\displaystyle p_{R}(r)={\frac {2r}{\Omega }}e^{-r^{2}/\Omega }\ \ \ \ (2).}$

I'm not sure which representation I prefer. Now I look at it again, I realise that really there is a dummy variable either way: I was just thinking in terms of ${\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}}$ being a variance, when it isn't for the Rayleigh distribution anyway (it is just the variance of the two underlying iid's). The tradeoff is in a slightly non-standard representation of the PDF (2) versus the standard in (1). I think for simplicity I prefer (2). So we should change it, then, right? In any case, the article as it stands is wrong, so I'll just dive in I think. -Splash - tk 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible new Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet

JianLi (talk · contribs) seems to be making some similar edits to this sockpuppet group. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

José is Fluid (talk · contribs) might also be another sock. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. A simple check of my IP address and my user contributions (which significantly predate the AFD discussions) will confirm this. JianLi 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not convinced that you are. -Splash - tk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jose is Fluid on the other hand, almost certainly is. -Splash - tk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this mean his entire talk page gets blanked?! You all are acting a little peculiarly. Can you explain what this is all about? What is this supposed sock master doing? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, he is sock puppeting, that's what sockpuppeteers do. I have taken to blanking his talk pages because he uses them to hold conversations between his socks backing up his case on whatever his issue du jour is; you can find the previous, minimal, entries in the history if you have a need for them. He uses sockpuppets in the classic manner: he uses them to back himself in AfDs (sometimes carefully choosing both side of the debate), he uses them to to back himself up on talk pages, to engage in edit wars avoiding 3RR etc. It is not peculiar to stop him from doing so. If he would only edit benignly like everyone else, there would be no problem. -Splash - tk 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Aren't you supposed to be getting more proof - like checkuser or something - before eradicating the user from existence? Just curious. From reading WP:SOCK, it seems like we're supposed to be a little cautious with such cases. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

People can change IP's, plus, how can a new user know so much about Misplaced Pages and how it works, along with requesting deletion of TV-personality articles right off the bat without being a sock? --CFIF (talk to me) 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't need to trouble checkusers for obvious sockpuppets, which these are. I've done lots of reading and studying on this before blocking each and every one of them. Have you done any before telling me what I should be doing? -Splash - tk 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is causing far too much trouble. I'm quite keen on bringing a resolution to this perceived problem, and here is something that I expect to nip the problem at its bud. I finally got a chance to go through every single edit of José is Fluid's account. Even if it is not a sockpuppet, I agree with the permanent block 100%.

• 2nd edit to Don Bell (reporter) is adding a speedy.
• 5th edit to Lanisha Cole is adding a speedy.
• 6th edit to Mother nation is adding a speedy.
• 7th edit to Paul Boland is adding a speedy.
• 8th edit is a request for investigation for Splash and CFIF

• After that, a number of harmless edits are made to articles, alternating with occasional posts to Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation.

Qualitatively, the amount of disruption and lost time editing Misplaced Pages this handful number of edits caused is more than enough to warrant the block. --HappyCamper 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)