# Correction to Documentation for Cepstrogram & Cepstrogram

**URL:** <https://community.wolfram.com/t/correction-to-documentation-for-cepstrogram-cepstrogram/11493>\
**Category:** Ideas\
**Tags:** signal-processing, graphics-and-visualization\
**Created:** [November 9, 2017, 1:11am UTC](https://community.wolfram.com/t/correction-to-documentation-for-cepstrogram-cepstrogram/11493 "2017-11-09T01:11:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sbg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/wolfram/user_avatar/community.wolfram.com/sbg/32/20682_2.png) [@sbg](https://community.wolfram.com/u/sbg)\
**Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 1:11am UTC](https://community.wolfram.com/t/correction-to-documentation-for-cepstrogram-cepstrogram/11493/1 "2017-11-09T01:11:25Z")

</div>

Just as an FYI, the default partition size for these two routines is

```
2^(Round[Log[2,Length[list]]]+1)

```

rather than

```
2^Round[Log[2,Length[list]]]+1 

```

as stated in the docs. The default step size is any number between `Round[partition/3]` and the length of the list.

Cheers, Scott

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![shadi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/wolfram/user_avatar/community.wolfram.com/shadi/32/18759_2.png) [@shadi](https://community.wolfram.com/u/shadi)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://community.wolfram.com/t/correction-to-documentation-for-cepstrogram-cepstrogram/11493/2 "2017-11-15T21:38:17Z")

</div>

Thanks Scott for reporting. They are all fixed internally and will show up in the next documentation update.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon\_91240867](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@anon\_91240867](https://community.wolfram.com/u/anon_91240867)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 4:43am UTC](https://community.wolfram.com/t/correction-to-documentation-for-cepstrogram-cepstrogram/11493/3 "2017-11-16T04:43:11Z")

</div>

What’s your secret, Scott? When I corrected 14 lines of false documentation, Wolfram reprimanded me and edited my post, falsely making it appear I’d asked about some mere “typo”:

> [@Typo in docs of InverseFourierSequenceTransform & FourierCoefficient ?](https://wolfram.discourse.group/t/11246/1):
>
> Documentation for both functions says “FourierCoefficient is the same as InverseFourierSequenceTransform” and proceeds to show an example where they happen to give the same results (only because they’re applied to an even function). In fact the two functions aren’t the same. They have opposite signs in the exponent in the integral.

No Wolfram rep ever acknowledged the falseness of the 14 lines of documentation I cited; instead I got called “extreme” for calling the falsity a “documentation-bug”, and I got run-around by Wolfram, who asked me to re-submit the report through other channels (no, thanks, I won’t do that). In light of Wolfram’s attitude, I no longer donate my unpaid time submitting reports to assist Wolfram employees improve their product.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolframcommunity](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/wolfram/user_avatar/community.wolfram.com/wolframcommunity/32/8335_2.png) [@wolframcommunity](https://community.wolfram.com/u/wolframcommunity)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://community.wolfram.com/t/correction-to-documentation-for-cepstrogram-cepstrogram/11493/4 "2017-11-16T19:46:57Z")

</div>

There is really not much of a secret here. Following basic (n)etiquette, giving a clear statement of the problem, refraining from casting aspersions on other posters and/or various parts of the company, not hijacking another thread on Community, avoiding explicit expectation of an “official” company reply in a forum where responses from employees are strictly voluntary, that sort of thing. These are regarded as minimal requirements on Wolfram Community and, we rather expect, most other professional on-line communities.