Can a Function Accurately Model a Random Array of Points on the x-y Plane?

  • Thread starter Thread starter skyraider
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regression
AI Thread Summary
Modeling a random array of points on the x-y plane can be achieved with a function, such as a fourth-order polynomial, which can hit each specified point exactly. However, using such a polynomial is not advisable due to its poor extrapolation capabilities and tendency to behave erratically outside the given points. The discussion emphasizes that there is no universal modeling technique, and the choice of method should depend on the specific expectations from the model beyond merely fitting the points. Participants suggest that understanding the intended use of the model is crucial for recommending suitable statistical methods. Ultimately, a tailored approach is necessary for effective modeling of random data.
skyraider
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I want to model a set of a few dozen points on the x-y plane where y can be anywhere from 0 to 100 and x increases by 1 for each point on the y-axis, ex:

(1, 26)
(2, 84)
(3, 2)
etc. . .

Is it possible to accurately model such a random array of points with an equation? Someone once suggested using an 'interpolating polynomial in the Lagrange form', but that does not appear to work well with such a random array of points.

If it can't be done with a known regression technique, here is my question:

Given the points (1, 26) (2, 84) (3, 2) (4, 100) (5, 50), could a function exist - any function of any category - which will hit each point?

Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
skyraider said:
Given the points (1, 26) (2, 84) (3, 2) (4, 100) (5, 50), could a function exist - any function of any category - which will hit each point?

Thanks.

This final question is an easy one: The answer is yes. A fourth-order polynomial will hit each point exactly:
-27x^4 + 323\frac1 3x^3-1335x^2+2204\frac2 3x-1140

You generally don't want to do that, however. For example, this particular polynomial rapidly goes negative as x goes below 1 or above 5. In other words, it has very little extrapolative capability. You will quickly start to lose even interpolative capability with the exact-fit polynomial as the number of points increases. You want to develop a fit to a less expressive model.

There is no magic one-form-fits-all method. People can still get advanced degrees in statistics, after all.
 
If you tell us what you expect from this "model", we can suggest various methods that are suited to the task.
 
As Crosson says, obviuosly you must be expecting something from this model besides hitting all the points. You already have all the points so you must be expecting something additional, but what is it?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top