That's silly. The sentence clearly wasn't about "credit", it was about explaining what a cool guy Tukey was. I think his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed (that is, the thing we commonly think of as "the FFT algorithm" -- for obvious reasons Gauss didn't identify the application correctly) absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect.
If anything, your dismissal of the guy's work is the real crime here. What's your problem with Tukey, exactly?
This is an ad hominem attack that is senseless here. Turkey was a cool guy; "his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect." Yes, you are absulutely right. But that's not what the article said; that's what lutusp said.
Comments
That's silly. The sentence clearly wasn't about "credit", it was about explaining what a cool guy Tukey was. I think his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed (that is, the thing we commonly think of as "the FFT algorithm" -- for obvious reasons Gauss didn't identify the application correctly) absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect.
If anything, your dismissal of the guy's work is the real crime here. What's your problem with Tukey, exactly?
This is an ad hominem attack that is senseless here. Turkey was a cool guy; "his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect." Yes, you are absulutely right. But that's not what the article said; that's what lutusp said.
> If anything, your dismissal of the guy's work ...
Before going on, locate where I did any such thing.