Solve Tricky Summation Homework Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saladsamurai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
5 replies · 2K views
Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement



I have this nasty summation and I am close to finding a way to calculate it with my graphing calculator. I just need to iron out the details. If I can rewrite the summation on terms of [itex]\bar{x}[/itex], [itex]\bar{y}[/itex] and [itex]\sum x_iy_i[/itex] I will be all set. I will explain these terms in a moment. First, here is the sum:

[tex]S_{xy} = \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})[/tex]

Where [itex]x_i[/itex] and [itex]y_i[/itex] are the x and y (sample) averages.

If I do out the multiplication I get [tex]S_{xy} = <br /> \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})[/tex]

[tex]= \sum x_iy_i - x_i\bar{y} - y_i\bar{x} + \bar{x}\bar{y}[/tex]

[tex]= \sum x_iy_i - \bar{y}\sum x_i - \bar{x}\sum y_i +\sum\bar{x}\bar{y}[/tex]

Now I it is just the last term [itex]\sum\bar{x}\bar{y}[/itex] that is bothering me. I think the answer is obvious, but I would like confirmation: is the expression [itex]\sum\bar{x}\bar{y}[/itex] identical to [itex]n*(\bar{x}\bar{y})[/itex] ?It must be. I don't know why I am doubting this. :redface:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes

[tex]\sum\bar{x}\bar{y} = n\bar{x}\bar{y}[/tex]

Also remember that

[tex]\sum x_i = n \bar{x}[/tex]

[tex]\sum y_i = n \bar{y}[/tex]

So what does

[tex]- \bar{y}\sum x_i - \bar{x}\sum y_i +\sum\bar{x}\bar{y}[/tex]

become?
 
Oh neat. Looks like it reduces to [itex]-n\bar{x}\bar{y}[/itex]

Yes?
 
I like this. If I could write it all on terms of xbar, ybar, and n, that would be best. I think that the sum(xi*yi) term can be written in terms of these. I'll post back I'm a moment. Thanks again!

Hmmm... I am not seeing an easy way to write [itex]\sum x_iy_i[/itex] in terms of [itex]\bar{x}[/itex], [itex]\bar{x}[/itex], and n. Perhaps there isn't one?
 
Last edited:
"I am not seeing an easy way to write in terms of [itex]\bar x[/itex], [itex]\bar y[/itex] , and n. Perhaps there isn't one?"

No, there is not.