Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many gmkarl at gmail.com
Thu Nov 10 07:21:56 PST 2022

i am partway through addressing the imperfections.

i got the data much closer by prefixing the subrange with the DC
offset. obviously, it would never have matched without that. there are
further issues that also have that property, that i haven't thought

before this change, the data compared like this:
(Pdb) p reconstructed_from_original
array([263.0608397 ,   0.95268138,   0.78292761, ...,   1.21166631,
         0.78292761,   0.95268138])
(Pdb) p reconstructed_from_reconstructed
array([ 2.53569771e+02,  6.97125806e-02, -2.41580764e-01, ...,
       -1.75374096e-01, -2.41580764e-01,  6.97125806e-02])

after the change, it now compares like this:
(Pdb) p reconstructed_from_reconstructed
array([245.42651702,   0.86299853,   1.39828105, ...,   0.86886888,
         1.39828105,   0.86299853])
(Pdb) p reconstructed_from_original
array([262.83951251,   1.20706425,   0.73003879, ...,   0.84832615,
         0.73003879,   1.20706425])

the shapes are roughly the same, and the orders of magnitude of every
sample are all the same.
the data is still significantly distant, and it's notable that
removing the frequency information collected a ton of energy at t=0,
removing the original shape of the signal.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list