Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

onkus t1_iwg7e0e wrote

Reply to comment by eternal-abyss-77 in Can someone explain me the math behind this paper and tell me whether the way I have understood this paper is right or not? by eternal-abyss-77

I dont follow what you are showing with those matrices. You should actually ask a question.

Are you stating what H x I is? If so, you are using the same definition in your original question which i just said was wrong. I could have been more specific about H: each row and xolumn will have exactly one occurance of a 1 and N-1 zeros.

H =

0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0

for l =2,N=7

Do you know how to subtract matrices from one another? The second and third matrix you show suggests you don't.

Im not sure what to elaborate on regarding the rotation that the authors dont mention in their paper. I could talk for hours about rotations, pixel differences, numerical gradients etc. Im not just going to ramble on without context. What do you want to know?

3

eternal-abyss-77 OP t1_iwg7mjm wrote

I am asking what is

I - H is?

I get the same H as you say, but what is the matrix we get after I - H? Is it a mirror of H? As in paper, they said

I  -I
-I  I

So, the I in I-H is, normal identity matrix where major diagonal elements are 1 or is it mirror of H

1

onkus t1_iwja7ea wrote

What do you mean by “mirror of H"? I is always the identity matrix here. Why do you think it could be the "mirror" of H?

2

eternal-abyss-77 OP t1_iwjvpds wrote

So I - HL will be

[ 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 ]
[ 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 ]
[ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ]
[ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ]
[ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ]
[ -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 ]
[ 0 -1 0 0 0 0 1 ]

This. And same goes for I - VL

Fine.

What do they mean by those rotations?

1