Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Here are a few useful relationships related to the covariance of two random variables, \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\) a show that \(\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=E\left(x_{1} x_{2}\right)-E\left(x_{1}\right) E\left(x_{2}\right) .\) An important implication of this is that if \(\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=0, E\left(x_{1} x_{2}\right)\) \(=E\left(x_{1}\right) E\left(x_{2}\right) .\) That is, the expected value of a product of two random variables is the product of these variables' expected values. b. Show that \(\operatorname{Var}\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right)=a^{2} \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right)+b^{2} \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)+2 a b \operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)\) c. In Problem \(2.15 \mathrm{d}\) we looked at the variance of \(X=k x_{1}+(1-k) x_{2} \quad 0 \leq k \leq 1 .\) Is the conclusion that this variance is minimized for \(k=0.5\) changed by considering cases where \(\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \neq 0 ?\) d. The correlation coefficient between two random variables is defined as \\[ \operatorname{Corr}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=\frac{\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right) \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)}} \\] Explain why \(-1 \leq \operatorname{Corr}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \leq 1\) and provide some intuition for this result. e. Suppose that the random variable \(y\) is related to the random variable \(x\) by the linear equation \(y=\alpha+\beta x\). Show that \\[ \beta=\frac{\operatorname{Cov}(y, x)}{\operatorname{Var}(x)} \\] Here \(\beta\) is sometimes called the (theoretical) regression coefficient of \(y\) on \(x\). With actual data, the sample analog of this expression is the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression coefficient.

Short Answer

Expert verified
In part (a) of the solution, the covariance formula is expanded to show that if the covariance between two random variables is zero, then the expected value of their product equals the product of their expected values. This implies that the two variables are uncorrelated and do not linearly depend on each other. In part (b), the formula for the variance of a linear combination of two random variables is proven. This formula shows the relationship between the variances and covariance of the individual variables. Part (c) analyzes the impact of non-zero covariance on variance minimization. The conclusion is that the minimum-variance value of k may change depending on the specific values of the covariance and variances of the variables involved. Part (d) discusses the correlation coefficient and its bounds between -1 and 1. The bounds represent the strongest possible linear relationships between two variables, with values between -1 and 1 indicating weaker or no linear relationship. Finally, part (e) proves the relationship between the theoretical regression coefficient of y on x, showing that it is equal to the ratio of the covariance between y and x to the variance of x.

Step by step solution

01

Part (a)

The covariance of two random variables \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\) is given by the formula: \[ \operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) = E\left[(x_{1} - E\left[x_{1}\right])(x_{2} - E\left[x_{2}\right])\right] \] Expanding the product inside the expectation, we get: \[ \operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) = E\left[x_{1} x_{2}\right] - E\left[x_{1}\right] E\left[x_{2}\right] \] This shows that if the covariance between two random variables is zero, then the expected value of their product equals the product of their expected values. In this case, the two variables are uncorrelated and do not linearly depend on each other.
02

Part (b)

We are asked to prove the following formula: \[ \operatorname{Var}\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right)=a^{2}\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right)+b^{2}\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)+2 a b \operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \] To do this, we first write the variance expression: \[ \operatorname{Var}\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right) = E\left[\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2} - E\left[a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right]\right)^2\right] \] Expanding the square and using the linearity of the expectation operator, we get: \[ \operatorname{Var}\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right) = a^2 E\left[\left(x_{1} - E\left[x_{1}\right]\right)^2\right] + b^2 E\left[\left(x_{2} - E\left[x_{2}\right]\right)^2\right] + 2ab E\left[\left(x_{1} - E\left[x_{1}\right]\right)\left(x_{2} - E\left[x_{2}\right]\right)\right] \] Now, we simply recognize the expressions inside the expectation as the variances and covariance: \[ \operatorname{Var}\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right)=a^{2}\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right)+b^{2}\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)+2 a b \operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \]
03

Part (c)

In Problem 2.15d, the variance of \(X=k x_{1}+(1-k) x_{2}\) is minimized for \(k=0.5\) when the covariance between \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) is zero. We're asked to check if this conclusion still holds for cases where \(\operatorname{Cov}(x_1, x_2) \neq 0\). Using the formula proven in Part (b), when the covariance is non-zero, choosing a particular value of \(k\) will impact how the covariance term contributes to the overall variance. Therefore, it is possible that the minimum-variance value of \(k\) will change, and the answer to this question depends on the specific values of the covariance and variances of \(x_1\) and \(x_2\).
04

Part (d)

The correlation coefficient between two random variables is given by: \[ \operatorname{Corr}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) = \frac{\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right) \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)}} \] By definition, the variances and the square root we are dividing by are always positive, so the sign of the correlation is determined by the covariance. If the covariance is zero, the correlation will be also zero, meaning there's no linear dependence between the two variables. A correlation of 1 or -1 means the two variables have a perfect positive or negative linear relationship, respectively. Since the covariance is divided by the square root of the product of the variances, the correlation coefficient values are bounded between -1 and 1. These bounds represent the strongest possible linear relationships between the variables, and any value between -1 and 1 indicates weaker or no linear relationship.
05

Part (e)

We are given the linear equation \(y = \alpha + \beta x\), and are asked to prove that: \[ \beta=\frac{\operatorname{Cov}(y, x)}{\operatorname{Var}(x)} \] First, rewrite the equation as \(y - \alpha = \beta x\). Now calculate the covariance between \(y\) and \(x\): \[ \operatorname{Cov}(y, x) = E\left[(y - E[y])(x - E[x])\right] \] Substitute the equation for \(y\): \[ \operatorname{Cov}(y, x) = E\left[(\beta x - E[\beta x])(x - E[x])\right] \] Simplify by taking the constant \(\beta\) out of the expectations and using the fact that \(E[\beta x] = \beta E[x]\): \[ \operatorname{Cov}(y, x) = \beta E\left[(x - E[x])(x - E[x])\right] \] Recognize the expression inside the expectation as the variance of \(x\): \[ \operatorname{Cov}(y, x) = \beta \operatorname{Var}(x) \] Finally, isolate \(\beta\): \[ \beta=\frac{\operatorname{Cov}(y, x)}{\operatorname{Var}(x)} \]

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Variance
Variance is a measure of how much a set of random variables differ from their mean. It gives us an idea of the spread or dispersion within a dataset. Mathematically, for a random variable \(x\), the variance is defined as:\[\operatorname{Var}(x) = E[(x - E[x])^2]\]Here's why variance matters:
  • It quantifies the unpredictability or volatility in the dataset.
  • A high variance indicates that the data points are spread out over a wider range.
  • A low variance indicates that the data points are closer to the mean.
Variance plays a critical role in statistics, especially in formulas like the one for the sum of variables, \(a x_1 + b x_2\), showing how the interrelation of data (via covariance) contributes to variability.
Correlation Coefficient
The correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables, \(x_1\) and \(x_2\). It is expressed as:\[\operatorname{Corr}(x_1, x_2) = \frac{\operatorname{Cov}(x_1, x_2)}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}(x_1) \operatorname{Var}(x_2)}}\]Key characteristics of the correlation coefficient include:
  • Values range from -1 to 1.
  • A value of 1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship.
  • A value of -1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship.
  • A value of 0 means no linear relationship at all.
The correlation is bound by -1 and 1 because it standardizes covariance into a dimensionless value, reflecting the extent to which their movements are synchronized.
Regression Coefficient
In the context of a linear equation, such as \(y = \alpha + \beta x\), the regression coefficient \(\beta\) represents the slope of the line, indicating how much \(y\) is expected to change as \(x\) changes. Mathematically, \(\beta\) is calculated as:\[\beta = \frac{\operatorname{Cov}(y, x)}{\operatorname{Var}(x)}\]Here's more on regression coefficients:
  • \(\beta\) tells us the change in \(y\) for a unit increase in \(x\).
  • It is derived from the principle of minimizing squared differences (Ordinary Least Squares).
  • A positive \(\beta\) suggests \(y\) increases with \(x\), while a negative \(\beta\) suggests the opposite.
Regression coefficients are vital for understanding relationships within data and making predictions.
Expectation
Expectation, or expected value, of a random variable provides a measure of its central tendency. For a discrete random variable \(x\), it is calculated as:\[E[x] = \sum{x_i P(x_i)}\]Whereas for continuous variables, it integrates over a probability density function:\[E[x] = \int{x f(x) \, dx}\]Key elements of expectation include:
  • It gives us the average outcome if an experiment is repeated many times.
  • Expectation helps in predicting long-term results.
  • It facilitates the calculation of higher statistical metrics like variance and covariance.
Expectation is central to probability theory and serves as a foundation for further statistical analysis.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Another function we will encounter often in this book is the power function: \\[ y=x^{\delta} \\] the form \(y=x^{8} / 8\) to ensure that the derivatives have the proper sign). a. Show that this function is concave (and therefore also, by the result of Problem \(2.9,\) quasi-concave). Notice that the \(\delta=1\) is a special case and that the function is "strictly" concave only for \(\delta<1\) b. Show that the multivariate form of the power function \\[ y=f\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=\left(x_{1}\right)^{8}+\left(x_{2}\right)^{8} \\] is also concave (and quasi-concave). Explain why, in this case, the fact that \(f_{12}=f_{21}=0\) makes the determination of concavity especially simple. c. One way to incorporate "scale" effects into the function described in part (b) is to use the monotonic transformation \\[ g\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=y^{y}=\left[\left(x_{1}\right)^{8}+\left(x_{2}\right)^{8}\right]^{y} \\] where \(\gamma\) is a positive constant. Does this transformation preserve the concavity of the function? Is \(g\) quasi-concave?

Show that if \(f\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)\) is a concave function then it is also a quasi-concave function. Do this by comparing Equation 2.114 (defining quasi-concavity) with Equation 2.98 (defining concavity). Can you give an intuitive reason for this result? Is the converse of the statement true? Are quasi-concave functions necessarily concave? If not, give a counterexample.

A simple way to model the construction of an oil tanker is to start with a large rectangular sheet of steel that is \(x\) feet wide and \(3 x\) feet long. Now cut a smaller square that is \(t\) feet on a side out of each corner of the larger sheet and fold up and weld the sides of the steel sheet to make a traylike structure with no top. a. Show that the volume of oil that can be held by this tray is given by \\[ V=t(x-2 t)(3 x-2 t)=3 t x^{2}-8 t^{2} x+4 t^{3} \\] b. How should \(t\) be chosen to maximize \(V\) for any given value of \(x ?\) c. Is there a value of \(x\) that maximizes the volume of oil that can be carried? d. Suppose that a shipbuilder is constrained to use only 1,000,000 square feet of steel sheet to construct an oil tanker. This constraint can be represented by the equation \(3 x^{2}-4 t^{2}=1,000,000\) (because the builder can return the cut-out squares for credit). How does the solution to this constrained maximum problem compare with the solutions described in parts and (c)?

Consider the following constrained maximization problem: \\[ \begin{array}{ll} \text { maximize } & y=x_{1}+5 \ln x_{2} \\ \text { subject to } & k-x_{1}-x_{2}=0 \end{array} \\] where \(k\) is a constant that can be assigned any specific value. a. Show that if \(k=10\), this problem can be solved as one involving only equality constraints. b. Show that solving this problem for \(k=4\) requires that \(x_{1}=-1\) c. If the \(x^{\prime}\) s in this problem must be non-negative, what is the optimal solution when \(k=4 ?\) (This problem may be solved either intuitively or using the methods outlined in the chapter.) d. What is the solution for this problem when \(k=20 ?\) What do you conclude by comparing this solution with the solution for part (a)? Note: This problem involves what is called a quasi-linear function. Such functions provide important examples of some types of behavior in consumer theory-as we shall see.

Because we use the envelope theorem in constrained optimization problems often in the text, proving this theorem in a simple case may help develop some intuition. Thus, suppose we wish to maximize a function of two variables and that the value of this function also depends on a parameter, \(a: f\left(x_{1}, x_{2}, a\right) .\) This maximization problem is subject to a constraint that can be written as: \(g\left(x_{1}, x_{2}, a\right)=0\) a. Write out the Lagrangian expression and the first-order conditions for this problem. b. Sum the two first-order conditions involving the \(x^{\prime}\) s. c. Now differentiate the above sum with respect to \(a\) - this shows how the \(x\) 's must change as \(a\) changes while requiring that the first-order conditions continue to hold. A. As we showed in the chapter, both the objective function and the constraint in this problem can be stated as functions of \(a: f\left(x_{1}(a), x_{2}(a), a\right), g\left(x_{1}(a), x_{2}(a), a\right)=0 .\) Differentiate the first of these with respect to \(a\). This shows how the value of the objective changes as \(a\) changes while keeping the \(x^{\prime}\) s at their optimal values. You should have terms that involve the \(x^{\prime}\) s and a single term in \(\partial f / \partial a\) e. Now differentiate the constraint as formulated in part (d) with respect to \(a\). You should have terms in the \(x\) 's and a single term in \(\partial g / \partial a\) f. Multiply the results from part (e) by \(\lambda\) (the Lagrange multiplier), and use this together with the first-order conditions from part (c) to substitute into the derivative from part (d). You should be able to show that \\[ \frac{d f\left(x_{1}(a), x_{2}(a), a\right)}{d a}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial a}+\lambda \frac{\partial g}{\partial a} \\] which is just the partial derivative of the Lagrangian expression when all the \(x^{\prime}\) 's are at their optimal values. This proves the envelope theorem. Explain intuitively how the various parts of this proof impose the condition that the \(x\) 's are constantly being adjusted to be at their optimal values. g. Return to Example 2.8 and explain how the envelope theorem can be applied to changes in the fence perimeter \(P\) -that is, how do changes in \(P\) affect the size of the area that can be fenced? Show that in this case the envelope theorem illustrates how the Lagrange multiplier puts a value on the constraint.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free