In article ,   
   Krishna Myneni   wrote:   
   >On 5/27/24 02:05, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >> Krishna Myneni   wrote:   
   >>> On 5/25/24 15:32, Ahmed wrote:   
   >>>> Ah, I see.   
   >>>> Thanks for the reply.   
   >>>   
   >>> My derivative routine is basic. For experimental data, it assumes you   
   >>> have done whatever preprocessing on the raw data to provide a reasonably   
   >>> smooth approximation of an analytic function to it.   
   >>>   
   >>> In measurements, one is rarely dealing with data which, in raw form, is   
   >>> an analytic function.   
   >>   
   >> An analytic function is defined in an infinitly many immeasurable   
   >> points where only Descartes and Cantor pretend to know the properties off.   
   >> Seriously?   
   >> At most an analytic function is a pretend thing, not a property of real   
   >> data, not even "rarely".   
   >>   
   >   
   >Good grief. We shouldn't even be talking about numerical differentiation   
   >then.   
      
   In practical manners it is okay to talk about numerical differentiation.   
   For instance implementing a pid regulator.   
   The derivative calculated numerically serves a great purpose. The thought   
   that a jurky motion of a piston is or isn't an analytical function, and   
   can extended to minus infinity in the complex plane is foreign to me.   
      
   >   
   >--   
   >Krishna   
      
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.   
   You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the   
   hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in   
   the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)