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

Suppose \(\mathbf{X}\) is an \(n \times p\) matrix with rank \(p\). (a) Show that \(\operatorname{ker}\left(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}\right)=\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\). (b) Use part (a) and the last exercise to show that if \(\mathbf{X}\) has full column rank, then \(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}\) is nonsingular.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Part (a) is demonstrated by proving that for any vector in the kernel of \(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}\), it must also be in the kernel of \(\mathbf{X}\), and vice versa, thus showing that \(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}) = \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\). In part (b), using the result from part (a), we know that the size of \(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})\) is \(0\) if \(\mathbf{X}\) has full column rank. Thus, \(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}\) is nonsingular.

Step by step solution

01

Defining the Kernels

Let's consider two vectors \(v\) such that \(v \in \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})\) and \(v \in \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\). Then, by definition of a kernel, we have \(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X} v = 0\) and \(\mathbf{X} v = 0\).
02

Proving \(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}) \subseteq \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\)

For any \(v \in \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})\), we have \(v^{\prime} \mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X} v = 0\). This implies \( (\mathbf{X} v)^{\prime} (\mathbf{X} v) = 0\). Since this holds only if \(\mathbf{X} v = 0\), we can conclude that \(v \in \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\).
03

Proving \(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}) \subseteq \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})\)

For any \(v \in \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\), we have \(\mathbf{X} v = 0\). This implies \(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X} v = \mathbf{X}^{\prime} 0 = 0\). Thus, \(v \in \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})\).
04

Using part (a) to prove part (b)

From part (a), we know \(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}) = \operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\). Since \(\mathbf{X}\) has full column rank \(p\), the size of its kernel (\(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X})\)) is \(0\). Therefore, the size of \(\operatorname{ker}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})\) is also \(0\), which means that \(\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X}\) is nonsingular.

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!

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

A random sample of size \(n=6\) from a bivariate normal distribution yields a value of the correlation coefficient of \(0.89 .\) Would we accept or reject, at the \(5 \%\) significance level, the hypothesis that \(\rho=0 ?\)

Fit \(y=a+x\) to the data $$ \begin{array}{l|lll} x & 0 & 1 & 2 \\ \hline y & 1 & 3 & 4 \end{array} $$ by the method of least squares.

Show that $$ R=\frac{\sum_{1}^{n}\left(X_{i}-\bar{X}\right)\left(Y_{i}-\bar{Y}\right)}{\sqrt{\sum_{1}^{n}\left(X_{i}-\bar{X}\right)^{2} \sum_{1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-\bar{Y}\right)^{2}}}=\frac{\sum_{1}^{n} X_{i} Y_{i}-n \overline{X Y}}{\sqrt{\left(\sum_{1}^{n} X_{i}^{2}-n \bar{X}^{2}\right)\left(\sum_{1}^{n} Y_{i}^{2}-n \bar{Y}^{2}\right)}} $$

Let the independent normal random variables \(Y_{1}, Y_{2}, \ldots, Y_{n}\) have, respectively, the probability density functions \(N\left(\mu, \gamma^{2} x_{i}^{2}\right), i=1,2, \ldots, n\), where the given \(x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{n}\) are not all equal and no one of which is zero. Discuss the test of the hypothesis \(H_{0}: \gamma=1, \mu\) unspecified, against all alternatives \(H_{1}: \gamma \neq 1, \mu\) unspecified.

Let the \(4 \times 1\) matrix \(\boldsymbol{Y}\) be multivariate normal \(N\left(\boldsymbol{X} \boldsymbol{\beta}, \sigma^{2} \boldsymbol{I}\right)\), where the \(4 \times 3\) matrix \(\boldsymbol{X}\) equals $$ \boldsymbol{X}=\left[\begin{array}{rrr} 1 & 1 & 2 \\ 1 & -1 & 2 \\ 1 & 0 & -3 \\ 1 & 0 & -1 \end{array}\right] $$ and \(\beta\) is the \(3 \times 1\) regression coefficient matrix. (a) Find the mean matrix and the covariance matrix of \(\hat{\beta}=\left(\boldsymbol{X}^{\prime} \boldsymbol{X}\right)^{-1} \boldsymbol{X}^{\prime} \boldsymbol{Y}\). (b) If we observe \(\boldsymbol{Y}^{\prime}\) to be equal to \((6,1,11,3)\), compute \(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\).

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math 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