Curve to Find Min Correlation Between A and C

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bazman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Correlation Curve
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the minimum correlation between variables A and C, given a correlation of 0.8 between A and B and 0.9 between B and C. The correlation matrix is set up, with the unknown correlation represented by x. Participants discuss the eigenvalue equation derived from the matrix, emphasizing the need for the correlation matrix to remain positive definite. The main goal is to determine the range of values for x that ensures positive eigenvalues, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the correlation matrix. The conversation highlights the complexity of solving for two unknowns while ensuring the conditions for positive definiteness are met.
Bazman
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
the correlation between A and B is 0.8 and between B and C is 0.9. I have to calculate what the least correlation A and C can be.

<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 1 &amp; 0.8 &amp; x\\<br /> 0.8 &amp; 1 &amp; 0.9\\<br /> x &amp; 0.9 &amp; 1<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

using sthe standard equation for eigenvalues you get:

-\lambda^3 + 3\lambda^2 + \lambda(x^2-1.55) - x^2 + 1.44x -0.45

2 points have a used the correct methodology so far?
Are my calculations correct?
how do I proceed from here?

Baz
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you are doing so far. Which, of many definitions of "correlation", are you using here? What does the x in your matrix represent? I will point out that the standard "equation" for eigenvalues that you give is not an equation at all. I presume you meant to make that equal to 0. Why did you write that equation?
 
I mean corelation betwen two random variables so the correlation matrix shouls be symmetric and positive defintie.

So the x in the equation represents the unknown correlation between A and C.

Well this is the problem:

look at the equation circa half way down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalue_algorithm

(I try to reproduce it below but its probably clearer on Wikipeadia)
det[A-lambda I3]= -lambda^3+lambda^2 Trace(A) + 0.5*lambda[Trace(A^2) -Trace^2(A)] + det [A

when this is set equal to zero and solved you get the eigenvalues.

If you sub in the values of my matrix including the values x you get the original equation I gave.

Really I need to find the range of values x that give positive values of the eigenvalues of my correlation matrix (to keep it positive definite). Taking the lower bound to be the lowest possible value of x.

I think the way I am proceeding is correct? (But I'm not sure)
 
Bazman said:
I mean corelation betwen two random variables so the correlation matrix shouls be symmetric and positive defintie.

So the x in the equation represents the unknown correlation between A and C.

Well this is the problem:

look at the equation circa half way down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalue_algorithm

(I try to reproduce it below but its probably clearer on Wikipeadia)
det[A-lambda I3]= -lambda^3+lambda^2 Trace(A) + 0.5*lambda[Trace(A^2) -Trace^2(A)] + det [A

when this is set equal to zero and solved you get the eigenvalues.

If you sub in the values of my matrix including the values x you get the original equation I gave.

Really I need to find the range of values x that give positive values of the eigenvalues of my correlation matrix (to keep it positive definite). Taking the lower bound to be the lowest possible value of x.
That's the crucial point, then.

I think the way I am proceeding is correct? (But I'm not sure)
Since the diagonal values are all 1, I would keep the equation in terms of 1- \lambda and then let u= 1-\lambda. The equation then is
u^3- (1.45+ x^2)u+ 1.44x= 0
In order that \lambda&gt; 0, u must be less than 1.

In order that there be no roots greater than 1, the expression on the left side of the equation must be always positive or always negative for u> 1. It's easy to see that, as u goes to infinity, that goes to positive infinity so it must be always positive for u> 1.
 
Hi There,

HallsofIvy thanks for your help with this. I got to couple of quesitons see your amended quote and below.

HallsofIvy said:
That's the crucial point, then.


Since the diagonal values are all 1, I would keep the equation in terms of 1- \lambda and then let u= 1-\lambda. The equation then is
u^3- (1.45+ x^2)u+ 1.44x= 0
In order that \lambda&gt; 0, u must be less than 1.

I follow the first part of your argument no problem.

In order that there be no roots greater than 1, the expression on the left side of the equation must be always positive or always negative for u> 1.

How do you come to this conclusion? Please elaborate. Why are you concerned that there be no roots greater than 1?

It's easy to see that, as u goes to infinity, that goes to positive infinity so it must be always positive for u> 1.

even given the last couple of points surely I am still stuck with one equation and two unknowns? u AND x.
u^3- (1.45+ x^2)u+ 1.44x= 0
 
Last edited:
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