Linear Regression: Pros and cons of Normal vs. simplified methods?

BrownishMonst
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm currently looking at a linear regression handout from Uni and there are two methods to calculate the equation. The Normal one is to find a and b for y=a+bx, the equations for a and b are given in the handout but I'll assume you're familiar with them. The simplified one is using

y = Bx + (\overline{y} − B\overline{x})​

The two produce slightly different values and I assume the normal one is more precise than the simplified.

What I'd like to know is which one would be best to use when? Is the difference negligible?

Thanks, and sorry if I've posted this in the wrong forum.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The two are mathematically identical, so the difference is likely roundoff error due to the difference in computation.

y = Bx + (y - Bx)
y = Bx + A
y = A + Bx

Note that the standard least squares estimates are the best linear unbiased estimates (as well as the maximum likelihood estimates), provided that the model assumptions are met. In this case, you would rarely want to use anything else.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top