Documentation for pywt.swt states:
"If start_level = m is given, then the beginning m steps are skipped:
[(cAm+n, cDm+n), ..., (cAm+1, cDm+1), (cAm, cDm)]"
It is misleading, because level = n is implied to be positive integer and not non-negative integer, i.e. starts from 1 and not 0.
I provide a counterexample level=1, start_level = 1.
According to documentation, coeffs = [(cA1+1, cD1+1), (cA1, cD1)], len(coeffs) = 2.
In reality, coeffs = [(cA1, cD1)], len(coeffs) = 1.
I suggest removing (cAm, cDm) from documentation or better yet, changing indexes to start from 0 for clarity.
Right now default start_level = 0 corresponds to [(cAn, cDn), ..., (cA2, cD2), (cA**1**, cD**1**)] which is also convoluted and misleading.
Documentation for pywt.swt states:
"If
start_level = mis given, then the beginning m steps are skipped:[(cAm+n, cDm+n), ..., (cAm+1, cDm+1), (cAm, cDm)]"It is misleading, because
level = nis implied to be positive integer and not non-negative integer, i.e. starts from 1 and not 0.I provide a counterexample
level=1, start_level = 1.According to documentation,
coeffs = [(cA1+1, cD1+1), (cA1, cD1)], len(coeffs) = 2.In reality,
coeffs = [(cA1, cD1)], len(coeffs) = 1.I suggest removing
(cAm, cDm)from documentation or better yet, changing indexes to start from 0 for clarity.Right now default
start_level = 0corresponds to[(cAn, cDn), ..., (cA2, cD2), (cA**1**, cD**1**)]which is also convoluted and misleading.