Least Squares Derivation—Simple Algebraic Simplification

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter END
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Least squares Squares
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the least squares method, specifically focusing on the algebraic steps involved in transitioning from one equation to another as presented in a referenced document. Participants are examining the correctness of the mathematical manipulations and the interpretation of terms in the equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the denominator in the final equation is derived, noting that it appears to be a difference of two terms rather than a sum as suggested in the prior step.
  • Another participant agrees with the first, indicating that the equation should maintain the sum of the two terms in the denominator as presented.
  • A third participant points out a potential mistake in an earlier step of the derivation, suggesting that the sign change in the denominator is incorrect and should reflect a minus sign instead.
  • A fourth participant reiterates the previous point about the sign change, emphasizing the need for a minus sign in the denominator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the algebraic steps in the derivation, particularly concerning the signs and the treatment of terms in the denominator. No consensus is reached on the correct interpretation of the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential errors in the derivation steps, particularly regarding the manipulation of signs and terms, but do not resolve these issues. The discussion remains focused on the specific algebraic transformations without reaching a definitive conclusion.

END
Messages
36
Reaction score
4
Hey, PF

I'm reading the following derivation of least squares, and I'm trying to figure out how the author went from the last step at the bottom of pg. 7 to the final equation (11) at the top of pg. 8.

[http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic515975.files/OLSDerivation.pdf]

More specifically, why is the denominator a difference of two terms? Aren't the terms in the denominator summed in the prior step?

I would expect the answer to be

$$
b_1=\dfrac{\displaystyle \sum_{\textrm{i=1}}^{n}y_ix_{i}-\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\left(\sum_{\textrm{i=1}}^{n}y_i\sum_{\textrm{i=1}}^{n}x_{i}\right)}{\displaystyle\sum_{\textrm{i=1}}^{n}x_{i}^2+\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\left(\sum_{\textrm{i=1}}^{n}x_{i}\right)^{2}}
$$

Note: I'm no statistician, but I thought you guys might be more familiar with this derivation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are right. The step only "divides both sides of the equation by the quantity in the large brackets on the left side" as the text states.

So, the sign doesn't change and will be the sum of the two terms in the denominator as you wrote out above.
 
But the the mistake is a few steps before that where the text reads "Multiplying out the last term on the right". The writer removes the brackets but only changes the sign for the first term of the brackets. It is supposed to be a minus sign in the denominator (as in a difference of the two terms).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: END
titasB said:
But the the mistake is a few steps before that where the text reads "Multiplying out the last term on the right". The writer removes the brackets but only changes the sign for the first term of the brackets. It is supposed to be a minus sign in the denominator (as in a difference of the two terms).

Thank you, TitasB!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: titasB

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K