Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!neon!calvin!zimmer
From: zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: A question about the Nyquist theorm
Message-ID: <1991Feb17.115102.15399@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Feb 91 11:51:02 GMT
References: <91046.095459F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> <Abj8CR200WBN04RPUr@andrew.cmu.edu> <317@sphere.UUCP>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 16

In article <317@sphere.UUCP> ruck@sphere.UUCP (John R Ruckstuhl Jr) writes:
>In article <Abj8CR200WBN04RPUr@andrew.cmu.edu>, kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu
>> >     I was reading an article that states the Nyquist theorm as:
>> >     "The sample frequency must be at least twice the highest frequency
>> >component within the analog signal for an accurate representation of the
>> >analog signal".
>
>I think this should be "GREATER than twice the highest frequency
>component".

Just to nit-pick, it should be "GREATER then twice the bandwidth of the 
signal", not twice the highest frequency.

Andrew
zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu