Fourth Moment in Terms of Correlations

  • Thread starter Thread starter marcusl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moment Terms
marcusl
Science Advisor
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
668
For multivariate normal distributions, Isserlis' theorem gives us moments in terms of cross-correlations, e.g.,

\operatorname{E}[\,x_1x_2x_3x_4\,] = \operatorname{E}[x_1x_2]\,\operatorname{E}[x_3x_4] + \operatorname{E}[x_1x_3]\,\operatorname{E}[x_2x_4] + \operatorname{E}[x_1x_4]\,\operatorname{E}[x_2x_3] = r_{12}r_{34}+r_{13}r_{24}+r_{14}r_{23}

Does this equation hold generally for non-normal distributions?
And does it change for complex (rather than real) quantities?
I am trying to analyze the complex signals received by an antenna array.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I've figured out the answer to my questions. The fourth-order cumulant (FOC) is given by

<br /> \operatorname{cum}[\,x_1x_2x_3x_4\,] = \operatorname{E}[\,x_1x_2x_3x_4\,] - \operatorname{E}[x_1x_2]\,\operatorname{E}[x_3x_4] - \operatorname{E}[x_1x_3]\,\operatorname{E}[x_2x_4] - \operatorname{E}[x_1x_4]\,\operatorname{E}[x_2x_3]

Note that the first term on the right is the multivariable fourth moment, while the remaining terms are the fourth moment of normally distributed rv's by Isserlis' theorem. We add the following properties of cumulants: the FOC for general random variables is, in general, non-zero, while the FOC for normally distributed random variables is identically zero. Putting these all together, then the expression in my first email must be specific to normally distributed rv's.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

2
Replies
67
Views
14K
Back
Top