My math skills are similarly challenged, despite my 80's-era minor degree in it.
I mean I recall when Ivo and maybe Dietmar or Stefan were trying to explain digital filtering to me. I still don't quite get it. 
Anywho, it seems he is laying out the basics, but I can't tell if he is thereafter just piling on the word salad in order to provide cover for what BXT is doing.
Also, if one is sampling, which SVD does and which he claims BXT is doing via tiling, doesn't that mean it isn't blind deconvolution, or am I misunderstanding that term?
Still seems to be it's what Ivo said it was way back. A sharpening or deblurring single pass, even if locally sampled, creating plausible but unreal fine detail, coupled with a repainting of stars (and the occasional small galaxy, apparently) into perfect little circles.
The too good to be true star results strike me as telling, though maybe I just don't understand it all. I mean people are posting up perfect stars that started out horrendously mangled for all sorts of possible underlying reasons. Now, maybe perfect deconvolution could actually undo even normal diffraction, taking stars to a point source with the surrounding pixels properly reconstructed, but doesn't noise prevent that no matter how deep the stack? And since that's the case, just what is being filled in around these newly-rounded and coalesced BXT stars? Almost seems to be like the star removal problem -- you didn't acquire what was there (it was blocked, after all) and so have filled things in with fake interpolation.
Maybe I'm wrong there to the extent deconvolution is true reconstruction, but can BXT really be that, or is it a deepfake?
). 