Dear Ian,
> distinction you're making between 'A Rice function' and 'THE Rice
function' since
> my understanding was that there was only one form of Rice distribution,
> i.e. the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_distribution
.
The same distinction seems common for the Gauss ND - we say that some
normal distribution is A Gauss function, not THE Gauss function....
> and 2) the PDF of the *(real) structure amplitude*, which is the Rice
distribution,
> and which is the result of integrating out of the phase (which gives the
I0 component
> of the Rice distribution) from the structure factor distribution.
The integrated-out real distribution with I0 seems to be the one that
appears in the majority
of the Sim papers. He probably never called it a Rice function, because his
first
derivation of that formula probably parallels the 1954 'Mathematical
analysis
of random noise', but there are references to earlier talks of Rice in it.
> However it would seem more logical to call the integrated (Rice) form of
Sim's
> function 'the Sim distribution' and not use this term to mean the 2-D
Gaussian.
That seems logical.
> As for ACNSFD & CCNSFD, I'm not clear what you mean,
Integrated form of Sim/Rice distribution and Woolfson distribution,
expressed in normalized structure factor amplitudes. Fits your defs.
> do you mean the *structure amplitude* distributions?
Ah - payback for the obsoleting of the structure amplitudes....
Yes, all clear. Thx!
And thx again to Dominika for copying the Rice article (a 180 pp book part,
actually)
Cheers
BR
|