Using Correlation :Random Variables as a Normed Space (Banach, Hilbert maybe.?)

Bacle
Messages
656
Reaction score
1
Hi, everyone:

I have been curious for a while about the similarity between the correlation
function and an inner-product: Both take a pair of objects and spit out
a number between -1 and 1, so it seems we could define a notion of orthogonality
in a space of random variables, so that correlation-0 random variables are orthogonal.

Does anyone know how far we can take this analogy, i.e., can we use correlation
as an inner-product to define a norm ( autocorrelation Corr(X,X)), and therefore
a normed space.?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The set, of all random variables over a given probability space, which have a finite second moment, is a Hilbert space.

This is a special case of the following: Given a measure space, the set of all square integrable functions is a Hilbert space.
 
Thanks.
What I was thinking about was more along the lines that
correlation as defined seems to mimic the cosine of the
angle between two vectors, given that -1<= Corr(X,Y)<=1
I wonder if there is some inner-product thatt would give rise to
this, as is the case with, e.g, R^n (n>1). I know we have some restrictions
since the above expression is not linear in neither x nor Y;
still, I wonder if there is a way of making it work.
 
In finite dimensional Euclidean space (a,b)=|a||b|cos(x), where | | denotes length and x is the angle between the vectors. The covariance is equivalent to cos(x).
 
Last edited:
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...
Back
Top