fig1 depicts the general case of an arrangement with n i transmitting antennas 11 - 1 , 11 - 2 , . . . 11 - n i , that output signals ( e . g ., space - time encoded signals ) to a transmission channel , and n o receiving antennas 21 - 1 , 21 - 2 , . . . 21 - n o . each transmitting antenna p outputs a complex - valued signal x p , the signals of the n j antennas pass through a noisy transmission channel , and the n o receiving antennas capture the signals that passed through the transmission channel . the received signals are oversampled by a factor of l in element 20 and applied to feedforward w filters 23 . thus , the sampling clock at the output of element 20 is of period t s = t / l , where t is the inter - symbol period at the transmitting antennas . the transmission channel &# 39 ; s characterization is also referenced to t s . filter bank 23 delivers an n i plurality of output signals ( n i can equal n q for example ) from which feedback signals are subtracted in circuit 24 and applied to decision circuits 25 ( comprising conventional slicers ). the outputs of decision circuits 25 are applied to feedback filters 26 , which develop the feedback signals . processor 22 develops the filter coefficients for the filters within elements 23 and 26 and installs the coefficients in the filters within these elements , as disclosed in detail below . in the illustrative embodiment disclosed herein , the received signal is expressed by where y k ( j ) is the signal at time k at the j th receiving antenna , h m ( i , j ) is the m th coefficient ( tap ) in the channel impulse response between the i th transmitting antenna and the j th receiving antenna , and n ( j ) is the noise vector at the j th receiving antenna . the memory of this path ( i . e ., the largest value of m for which h m ( i , j ) is not zero ) is denoted by v ( i , j ) . it may be noted that it not unreasonable to assume , that the memory of the transmission channel is the same for all i , j links ( n i × n o such links ), in which case v ( i , j ) = v . alternatively , the v ( i , j ) limit in equation ( 1 ) can be set to that v which corresponds to maximum length of all of the n i × n o channel input responses , i . e ., v = max i , j v ( i , j ) . it may also be noted that all of the variables in equation ( 1 ) are actually l × 1 column vectors , corresponding to the l time samples per symbol in the oversampled fig1 arrangement . by grouping the received samples from all n o antennas at symbol time k into an n o l × 1 column vector y k , one can relate y k to the corresponding n i × 1 ( column ) vector of input samples as follows where h m is the mimo channel coefficients matrix of size n o l × n i , x k - m is a size n i × 1 input ( column ) vector , and n k is a size n o l × 1 vector . over a block of n f symbol periods , equation ( 2 ) can be expressed in matrix notation as follows : the subscripts in equation ( 4 ) indicate a range . for example k + n f − 1 : k means the range from k + n f − 1 to k , inclusively . r xy ≡ e [ x k + n f − 1 : k − v y * k + n f − 1 : k ]= r xx h * ( 5 ) r yy ≡ e [ y k + n f − 1 : k y * k + n f − 1 : k ]= hr xxi h *+ r nn , ( 6 ) and it is assumed that these correlation matrices do not change significantly in time or , at least , do not change significantly over a time interval that corresponds to a tdma burst ( assumed to be much shorter than the channel coherence time ), which is much longer than the length of the fir filters in element 23 ( in symbol periods denoted by n f ). accordingly , a re - computation within processor 22 of the above matrices , and the other parameters disclosed herein , leading to the computation of the various filter coefficients , need not take place more often than once every tdma burst . once h , r xx and r nn are ascertained ( through the conventional use of training sequences ), r xy and r yy are computed by r xx h * and hr xx h *+ r nn , respectively . in accordance with the principles disclosed herein , element 23 comprises a collection of fir filters that are interconnected as shown in fig2 , and the impulse response coefficients of element 23 can be expressed by w *≡[ w * 0 w * 1 . . . w * n i - 1 ], each having n f matrix taps w i , of size ( ln 0 × n i ). that is , w i has the form : where each entry in w j ( p , q ) is an l × 1 vector corresponding to the l output samples per symbol . stated in other words , the matrix w 0 specifies the 0 th tap of the set of filters within element 23 , the matrix w 1 specifies the 1 st tap of the set of filters within element 23 , etc . also in accordance with the principles disclosed herein , element 26 comprises a collection of fir filters that also are interconnected as shown in fig2 , and the impulse response coefficients of element 26 is chosen to be equal to [ i n i 0 n i × n i n b ]− b *≡[( i n i − b * 0 ) b * 1 . . . b * n b ], ( 10 ) where b * is expressed by b *≡[ b * 0 b * 1 . . . b * n b ], with ( n b + 1 ) matrix taps b i , each of size n i × n i . that is , b i has the form : stated in other words , b 0 specifies the 0 th tap of the set of filters within element 26 , the matrix b 1 specifies the 1 st tap of the set of filters within element 26 , etc . defining { tilde over ( b )}*≡[ 0 n i × n i δ b b *], where { tilde over ( b )}* is a matrix of size n i × n i ( n f + v ), the value of n b is related to the decision delay by the equality ( δ + n b + 1 )=( n f + v ). e k ={ tilde over ( b )}* x k + n f − 1 : k − v − w * y k + n f − 1 : k ( 12 ) using the orthogonality principle , which states that e [ e k y * k + n t − tk ]= 0 , it can be shown that the optimum matrix feedforward and feedback filters are related by and the n i × n i auto - correlation matrix r ee is r ee can also be expressed as r ee ={ tilde over ( b )}* r − 1 { tilde over ( b )}, where r = r xx − 1 + h * r nn − 1 h . it remains to optimize values for the b matrix and the w matrix such that , in response to specified conditions , the trace ( or determinant ) of r ee is minimized . the following discloses three approaches to such optimization . in this scenario , it is chosen to process only previous receiver decisions . these decisions relate to different users that concurrently have transmitted information that has been captured by antennas 21 - 1 - 21 - n o and detected in circuit 25 . that means that feedback element 26 uses only delayed information and that the 0 th order coefficients of the filters within element 26 have the value 0 . therefore , in light of the definition expressed in equation ( 10 ), this scenario imposes the constraint of b 0 = i n i . to determine the optimum matrix feedback filter coefficients under this constraint , the following optimization problem needs to be solved : it can be shown that the solution to the above is given by where r 11 is of size n i ( δ + 1 )× n i ( δ + 1 ), then where the delay parameter δ is adjusted to minimize the trace ( or determinant ) of r ee , min . once { tilde over ( b )} opt is known , equation ( 14 ) is applied to develop w * opt . fig3 presents a flowchart for carrying out the method of determining the filter coefficients that processor 22 computes pursuant to scenario 1 . step 100 develops an estimate of the mimo channel between the input points and the output point of the actual transmission channel . this is accomplished in a conventional manner through the use of training sequences . the estimate of the mimo channel can be chosen to be limited to a given memory length , v , or can be allowed to include as much memory as necessary to reach a selected estimate error level . that , in turn , depends on the environment and is basically equal to the delay spread divided by t s . following step 100 , step 110 determines the matrices , r nn , r xx , r xy and r yy . the matrix r nn is computed by first computing n = y − hx and then computing the expected value e [ n * n ]— see equation ( 8 ) above . the matrix r xx is computed from the known training sequences — see equation ( 7 ) above —( or is pre - computed and installed in processor 22 ). in may be noted that for uncorrelated inputs , r xx = i . the matrices r xy and r yy are computed from the known training sequences and the received signal or directly from h and r nn — see equations ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) above . following step 110 , step 120 computes r = r xx − − h * r nn − 1 h , and the partition components , r 11 , r 12 , and r 22 , as per equation ( 20 ). following step 120 , step 130 computes r ee , min from equation ( 22 ) and adjusts δ to minimize the trace ( or determinant ) of r ee , min , computes { tilde over ( b )} opt from equation ( 21 ), and from { tilde over ( b )} opt determines the coefficients of the n i × n i filters of element 26 , pursuant to equation ( 10 ). step 140 computes w * opt from equation ( 14 ), and finally , step 150 installs the coefficients developed in step 130 into the filters of element 26 and the coefficients developed in step 140 into the filters of element 23 . a second approach for computing { tilde over ( b )} opt utilizes the block cholesky factorization ( which is a technique that is well known in the art ): where l 1 is of size n i ( δ + 1 )× n i ( δ + 1 ). using the result in equations ( 18 ) and ( 19 ) yields where the index δ opt is chosen ( as before ) to minimize the trace and determinant of r ee , min . using equation ( 23 ), equation ( 14 ) can be expressed as follows yet a third approach for computing { tilde over ( b )} opt and r ee , min defines { tilde over ( b )}*=[ c * b *] and partitions r ⊥ into as where r 11 ⊥ is of size n i ( δ + 1 )× n i ( δ + 1 ), to yield where r 11 ⊥ ≡ c * r 11 ⊥ c and r 12 ⊥ = c * r 12 ⊥ . therefore , b opt =− r 12 ⊥ ( r 22 ⊥ ) − w * opt =[ 0 n i × n i δ i n i − r 12 ⊥ ( r 22 ⊥ ) − 1 ]( r xx h *( hr xx h *+ r nn ) − 1 ( 27 ) r ee , min = r 11 ⊥ − r 12 ⊥ ( r 22 ⊥ ) − 1 r 12 ⊥ * ( 28 ) in this scenario it is assumed that users whose signals are received by the fig1 receiver are ordered so that lower - indexed users are detected first , and current decisions from lower - indexed users are used by higher - indexed users in making their decisions , i . e ., b 0 is a lower - triangular matrix . the general results of equations ( 21 ) and ( 22 ) can be applied by setting c ′=[ 0 n i × n n δ b * 0 ] where b 0 is an n i × n i monic lower - triangular matrix whose entries are optimized to minimize trace ( r ee , min ). to this end , a partitioning can be defined where r 11 being the term corresponding to r 11 of equation ( 20 ), with r 1 being of size n i δ × n i δ , and r 3 being of size n i × n i . equation ( 22 ) simplifies to it can be shown that , the optimum monic lower - triangular b 0 that minimizes trace ( r ee , min ) is given by the nomic lower - triangular cholesky factor of r 3 − 1 , i . e ., as expressed in equation ( 21 ), with the modified value of r 11 − 1 , and with a second approach for computing the optimum fir filter coefficients for the fig1 receiver involves computing a standard — rather than a block — cholesky factorization of the matrix r = r xx − 1 + h * r nn − 1 h ( see the definition following equation ( 15 )) in the form ldl *. then , the coefficients of the element 23 filters is given by the n i adjacent columns of l that correspond to a diagonal matrix with the smallest trace . therefore , equations ( 23 ) and ( 25 ) are used to compute the corresponding coefficients , with the understanding that l is now a lower - triangular matrix , rather than a block lower - triangular matrix . the equivalence of the two approaches can be shown using the nesting property of cholesky factorization . fig4 presents a flowchart for carrying out the method of determining the filter coefficients that processor 22 computes pursuant to scenario 2 . steps 100 through 120 are the same as in fig3 , but the method diverges somewhat in the following steps . in step 131 the partition according to equation ( 20 ) is developed for a δ that minimizes r ee , min of equation ( 33 ), and control passes to step 141 , where b 0 opt is computed based on equations ( 31 ) and ( 32 ), followed by a computation of { tilde over ( b )} opt based on equations ( 21 ) and ( 34 ). following step 141 , step 151 computes w * opt from equation ( 14 ), and finally , step 161 installs the coefficients developed in step 141 into the filters of element 26 and the coefficients developed in step 151 into the filters of element 23 . when multistage detectors are employed , current decisions from all other users , obtained from a previous detection stage , are available to the user of interest . therefore , suppressing their interfering effects would improve the performance of the receiver . this detection scenario has the same mathematical formulation as scenarios 1 and 2 , except that b 0 is now constrained only to be monic , i . e ., e i * b 0 e i = 1 for all 0 ≦ i ≦ n i − 1 . the general results in equations ( 21 ) and ( 22 ) still apply with c =[ 0 n i × n i δ b * 0 ] where b 0 is optimized to minimize trace ( r ee , min ). in short , under scenario 3 , the following optimization problem is solved : where r 3 is as defined in equation ( 29 ). using lagranage multiplier techniques , it can be shown that the optimum monic b 0 and the corresponding mmse are given by thus , the method of determining the filter coefficients that processor 22 computes pursuant to scenario 3 is the same as the method depicted in fig4 , except that the computation of b 0 opt within step 141 follows the dictates of equation ( 34 ). with the above analysis in mind , a design of the filter coefficients of the filters within elements 23 and 26 can proceed for any given set of system parameters , which includes : mimo channel memory between the input points and the output point of the actual transmission channel , v , the number of pre - filter taps chosen , n f , the shortened mimo memory , n b , the number of inputs to the transmission channel , n i , the number of output derived from the transmission channel , n o , the autocorrelation matrix of the inputs , r xx , the autocorrelation matrix of the noise , r nn , the oversampling used , l , and the decision delay , δ . it should be understood that a number of aspects of the above disclosure are merely illustrative , and that persons skilled in the art may make various modifications that , nevertheless , are within the spirit and scope of this invention .