Least Squares Derivation—Simple Algebraic Simplification

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 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 titasB
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.
Back
Top