I Question about ARMA process: Changing a Stochastic Process into a Transfer Function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on converting an ARMA process into a transfer function. A participant questions the correctness of their equation, receiving feedback that the powers of z are off by one due to single-step signal delays. Another contributor suggests using z^{-1} for delays instead of z, providing a corrected equation for the transfer function. The exchange highlights the importance of understanding time indexing in stochastic processes. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the nuances of transforming ARMA processes into transfer functions accurately.
e0ne199
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
I want to change arma process into transfer function, I have done it but I am unsure if it is correct or not
hello everyone, I have a question about stochastic process (ARMA process) that looks like this :
1728286558931.png

I would like to change it into a transfer function, so the final result looks like this :
1728286499447.png

My question is, is this equation correct? if it is not correct, what should I change for this equation? any response is really appreciated, thx.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think that's not exactly right, but it's a good try. The right side has single-step signal delays of 1, 2, and 3. So your powers of ##z## (on one side or the other) are off by 1. (I am assuming that the index in your variables are related to time such that k-1 is a step backward in time, a one step delay, ##1/z##)
I am not an expert at this, but here is what I would do. I prefer to work with the ##z^{-1}## single-step delay, rather than the ##z## look into the future, but that is just a matter of preference. I would get:
##W(z)(1-1.08z^{-1}+0.81z^{-2})=V(z)(z^{-1}+0.1z^{-2}-0.9z^{-3})##
So ##W(z)/V(z) = (z^2+0.1z-0.9)/(z^3-1.08z^2+0.81z)##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes PhDeezNutz and e0ne199
FactChecker said:
I think that's not exactly right, but it's a good try. The right side has single-step signal delays of 1, 2, and 3. So your powers of ##z## (on one side or the other) are off by 1. (I am assuming that the index in your variables are related to time such that k-1 is a step backward in time, a one step delay, ##1/z##)
I am not an expert at this, but here is what I would do. I prefer to work with the ##z^{-1}## single-step delay, rather than the ##z## look into the future, but that is just a matter of preference. I would get:
##W(z)(1-1.08z^{-1}+0.81z^{-2})=V(z)(z^{-1}+0.1z^{-2}-0.9z^{-3})##
So ##W(z)/V(z) = (z^2+0.1z-0.9)/(z^3-1.08z^2+0.81z)##.
hahaha thank you, that explanation is what I have been missing until now 😁
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, berkeman and FactChecker
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top