Measuring Attraction/Repulsion Changes in Sets: A Statistical Approach?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fer2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Comparison
fer2000
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody!

I have a large set of items and, two-by-two, there exists some kind of attraction/repulsion that I have measured. I synthesize this information in a (nxn) matrix.
Under different circumstances this attraction/repulsion changes.

So, what kind of statistical/mathematical procedure can I use to measure whether the changes (for the whole set) are “large/small”, as well as if a subset of them (lets say the first ten items) the attraction is larger than in another subset (lets say the last ten items)?.

Thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Perhaps provide some sample data to help us understand what you are trying to get at?
 
My data are comprised in different matrices (each of the situations provide that information).
First one
x 1.3 -1.5 . . . . . .
1.3 x 1.2 . . . . . .
-1.5 1.2 x . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Second one
x 1.1 1.3 . . . . . .
1.1 x -0.2 . . . . . .
1.3 -0.2 x . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Third one
x -0.1 0.3 . . . . . .
-0.1 x 0.4 . . . . . .
0.3 0.4 x . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


All of them are symmetrical and the diagonal does not make sense (I could write any number). Note that the dimension will be around 300 x 300 for each matrix.

How can I say if first one is closer (and how closer is) to second one than to third one (as well as any other combination)?

Thanks again.
 
My data are comprised in different matrices (each of the situations provide that information).
First one
x 1.3 -1.5 . . . . . .
1.3 x 1.2 . . . . . .
-1.5 1.2 x . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Second one
x 1.1 1.3 . . . . . .
1.1 x -0.2 . . . . . .
1.3 -0.2 x . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Third one
x -0.1 0.3 . . . . . .
-0.1 x 0.4 . . . . . .
0.3 0.4 x . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


All of them are symmetrical and the diagonal does not make sense (I could write any number). Note that the dimension will be around 300 x 300 for each matrix.

1) How can I say if first one is closer (and how closer is) to second one than to third one (as well as any other combination)?
2) I care about an external condition, that is the same for all the pairs that generate the matrix (so, it has a single value for all the pairs in the matrix) , and I would like to know if the proximity could be related to that condition.


Thanks again.
 
I don't really get what you are trying to do with the matrices, but from what I understand:

(1) the matrices are symmetric

(2) only the off-diagonal components are important.

(3) they swing between negative and positive values.

Let me suggest some ideas? you could take the off-diagonal components and put them in a vector instead. Then instead of comparing 2 matrices, you compare 2 vectors.

Take the difference of the two vectors and call it the residual vector. If some entries are more important than others you can multiply each entry in the residual vector by different weights (assigned arbitrarily of course). Then take the modulus of this residual vector.
 
It sounds like you're trying to compare three metrics (or semimetrics): the abstract 'distances' between 300 points. Perhaps counting the diagonals as 0, scaling the matrices (multiplying each by a constant, if needed, so the numbers are around the same 'size') and then compare the least squares of the residuals.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
309
Views
14K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
15K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
42
Views
4K
Back
Top