[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #60475] [ocatave forge] (signal) buttap poles
From: |
Charles Praplan |
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #60475] [ocatave forge] (signal) buttap poles have a different order |
Date: |
Wed, 5 May 2021 04:41:55 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/88.0 |
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #60475 (project octave):
Different zero and poles ordering is not an error.
Even Matlab does not sort poles and zeros in complex conjugate pairs.
In the page following the one you cite, you have an example:
Matlab:
>> [z,p,k]=cheb1ap(4,2)
z =
[]
p =
-0.1049 + 0.9580i
-0.2532 + 0.3968i
-0.2532 - 0.3968i
-0.1049 - 0.9580i
k =
0.1634
Note that for the same example Octave returns a complex gain, what is not very
good:
>> [z,p,k]=cheb1ap(4,2)
z = [](0x1)
p =
-0.1049 - 0.9580i
-0.2532 - 0.3968i
-0.2532 + 0.3968i
-0.1049 + 0.9580i
k = 1.6345e-01 + 2.7559e-18i
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60475>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #60475] [ocatave forge] (signal) buttap poles have a different order,
Charles Praplan <=