MHB Does the magnitude of covariance have any real meaning?

dhiraj
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The title of the question may not be clear. But that is the real difficulty I am facing. I am not able to understand logic behind coming up with this formula for covariance.

We know that the sample covariance formula is:-

[math]cov(x,y)=\frac{\sum(x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})}{n-1}[/math]

I am not able to understand the logic behind the numerator. Why are we multiplying the terms. I mean, I know we need to find the change in x is appearing along with change in y (if they co-vary), so this formula will give direction of that change in terms of sign of the number that you get after substituting the values in the formula. And also we will be able to compare e.g. Having covariance of 50 for example is more of proof of x and y moving together than having it as 30. So their order will make sense. But if you just think of a single value of covariance without having to compare it with anything else, does it have any real intuitive meaning (just the number in itself)? For example in case of variance or standard deviation one can easily see that it is average number of 'deviation from the mean' per data point in the sample. But here in case of covariance, I am not able to come up with any such intuitive understanding.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dhiraj said:
The title of the question may not be clear. But that is the real difficulty I am facing. I am not able to understand logic behind coming up with this formula for covariance.

We know that the sample covariance formula is:-

[math]cov(x,y)=\frac{\sum(x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})}{n-1}[/math]

I am not able to understand the logic behind the numerator. Why are we multiplying the terms. I mean, I know we need to find the change in x is appearing along with change in y (if they co-vary), so this formula will give direction of that change in terms of sign of the number that you get after substituting the values in the formula. And also we will be able to compare e.g. Having covariance of 50 for example is more of proof of x and y moving together than having it as 30. So their order will make sense. But if you just think of a single value of covariance without having to compare it with anything else, does it have any real intuitive meaning (just the number in itself)? For example in case of variance or standard deviation one can easily see that it is average number of 'deviation from the mean' per data point in the sample. But here in case of covariance, I am not able to come up with any such intuitive understanding.

Hi dhiraj! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

It seems you already know.

If both values in the numerator are positive they provide a positive product.
And if both values are negative they also provide a positive product.
So if the values co-vary in a positive sense, we'll get a strong positive value, as we should.

A single value does indeed not make much sense.
We cannot derive a covariance, and neither for that matter, can we derive a standard deviation (for the same reason).
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top