divide 3D array into 3 1D arrays

[RnDMonkey]

This whole thread is confusing to me. You can't, by definition, divide a 3D array into any less than N 2D arrays, where N is the size of the 3rd dimension, right? Likewise, you can't divide a 2D array into anything less than N 1D arrays, where N is the size of the 2nd dimension. So a 3D array with dimensions XYZ can be reshaped into a 1D array of X*Y*Z length (praise geometry!), or X 1D arrays of Y*Z length, or X*Y 1D arrays of Z length.

[Alexander_Sobolev]

Re: mock-up

There is no 3D array here.

3D array by definition is the one that has 3 dimensions - sheets, rows, columns.

You have 3D display of 2D array. (matrix) x-coordinate along row, y - coordinate along column, z - value in matrix.

Please check your definition of 3D array.

Regarding the mock-up

When you are drawing surface with that function, x and y array sizes should match matrix dimensions. You are drawing 168*2048 matrix  and coordinate sizes are 43008 and 16384.

X array should be real, preferrably continusously increasing (not to be confused by reordering). You are using absolute (or real part, I am not sure about conversion in 3D surface graph) of result of complex fourier 3D transformation of a saw. is it intended to be it?

can you explain your task on something simple, like z=x*y:

[altenbach]

---

@RnDMonkey wrote:

This whole thread is confusing to me. 

---

Let's not revive this 6 year old thread. Everything that can be said given the very incomplete problem information has been said already. If the original author would come back and clarify the problem, we could continue the discussion. ... and no, the lastest code attached by the OP does not help either. It probably also belongs in the Rube Goldberg thread.

I would also stay away from the word "divide" and use "split" or similar. No division is involved here, even though the thread title contains the word "divide".

[RnDMonkey]

---

altenbach wrote:

I would also stay away from the word "divide" and use "split" or similar. No division is involved here, even though the thread title contains the word "divide".

---

True enough. There's a reason we have terms like "split", "index", and "decimate" to represent specific operations. Terminology matters, especially in programming! 🙂