Correlation coefficient of a WSS process












0














Could someone please tell me why the correlation coefficient of a WSS process is :



$$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma^2} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma^2}$$



Instead of :



$$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} $$



?



Where :$~~~sigma_{t}^2=sigma^2=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)]$ .



Stated in another way , does a WSS process imply that :



$$operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]$$ ?



(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocovariance)






probability







share|cite|improve this question



























    0














    Could someone please tell me why the correlation coefficient of a WSS process is :



    $$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma^2} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma^2}$$



    Instead of :



    $$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} $$



    ?



    Where :$~~~sigma_{t}^2=sigma^2=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)]$ .



    Stated in another way , does a WSS process imply that :



    $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]$$ ?



    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocovariance)






    probability







    share|cite|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0







      Could someone please tell me why the correlation coefficient of a WSS process is :



      $$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma^2} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma^2}$$



      Instead of :



      $$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} $$



      ?



      Where :$~~~sigma_{t}^2=sigma^2=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)]$ .



      Stated in another way , does a WSS process imply that :



      $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]$$ ?



      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocovariance)






      probability







      share|cite|improve this question













      Could someone please tell me why the correlation coefficient of a WSS process is :



      $$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma^2} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma^2}$$



      Instead of :



      $$rho_{XX}(tau) = frac{operatorname{K}_{XX}(tau)}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} = frac{operatorname{E}[(X_t - mu)(X_{t+tau} - mu)]}{sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}} $$



      ?



      Where :$~~~sigma_{t}^2=sigma^2=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)]$ .



      Stated in another way , does a WSS process imply that :



      $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]=operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]$$ ?



      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocovariance)






      probability




      probability






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 4 at 16:37









      HilbertHilbert

      1479




      1479






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          Weak stationary implies that for all fixed $tau$, the function $tmapsto mathbb Eleft[X_{t+tau}X_tright]$ is constant. In particular, choosing $tau=0$ shows that $mathbb Eleft[X_{t+0}X_tright]=mathbb Eleft[X_t^2right]=mathbb Eleft[X_0^2right]$. The other part of the definition of weakly stationary process implies that the expectation of $X_t$ does not depend on $t$ hence we can safely define $sigma^2:=operatorname{Var}left(X_tright)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:21










          • Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
            – Davide Giraudo
            Jan 4 at 17:24










          • This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:33













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061808%2fcorrelation-coefficient-of-a-wss-process%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0














          Weak stationary implies that for all fixed $tau$, the function $tmapsto mathbb Eleft[X_{t+tau}X_tright]$ is constant. In particular, choosing $tau=0$ shows that $mathbb Eleft[X_{t+0}X_tright]=mathbb Eleft[X_t^2right]=mathbb Eleft[X_0^2right]$. The other part of the definition of weakly stationary process implies that the expectation of $X_t$ does not depend on $t$ hence we can safely define $sigma^2:=operatorname{Var}left(X_tright)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:21










          • Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
            – Davide Giraudo
            Jan 4 at 17:24










          • This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:33


















          0














          Weak stationary implies that for all fixed $tau$, the function $tmapsto mathbb Eleft[X_{t+tau}X_tright]$ is constant. In particular, choosing $tau=0$ shows that $mathbb Eleft[X_{t+0}X_tright]=mathbb Eleft[X_t^2right]=mathbb Eleft[X_0^2right]$. The other part of the definition of weakly stationary process implies that the expectation of $X_t$ does not depend on $t$ hence we can safely define $sigma^2:=operatorname{Var}left(X_tright)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:21










          • Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
            – Davide Giraudo
            Jan 4 at 17:24










          • This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:33
















          0












          0








          0






          Weak stationary implies that for all fixed $tau$, the function $tmapsto mathbb Eleft[X_{t+tau}X_tright]$ is constant. In particular, choosing $tau=0$ shows that $mathbb Eleft[X_{t+0}X_tright]=mathbb Eleft[X_t^2right]=mathbb Eleft[X_0^2right]$. The other part of the definition of weakly stationary process implies that the expectation of $X_t$ does not depend on $t$ hence we can safely define $sigma^2:=operatorname{Var}left(X_tright)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Weak stationary implies that for all fixed $tau$, the function $tmapsto mathbb Eleft[X_{t+tau}X_tright]$ is constant. In particular, choosing $tau=0$ shows that $mathbb Eleft[X_{t+0}X_tright]=mathbb Eleft[X_t^2right]=mathbb Eleft[X_0^2right]$. The other part of the definition of weakly stationary process implies that the expectation of $X_t$ does not depend on $t$ hence we can safely define $sigma^2:=operatorname{Var}left(X_tright)$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 4 at 16:50









          Davide GiraudoDavide Giraudo

          125k16150261




          125k16150261












          • I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:21










          • Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
            – Davide Giraudo
            Jan 4 at 17:24










          • This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:33




















          • I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:21










          • Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
            – Davide Giraudo
            Jan 4 at 17:24










          • This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
            – Hilbert
            Jan 4 at 17:33


















          I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
          – Hilbert
          Jan 4 at 17:21




          I do understand that part but the problem is why they've replaced $sigma_{t}sigma_{t+tau}$ by $sigma^2_{t}$ ?
          – Hilbert
          Jan 4 at 17:21












          Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
          – Davide Giraudo
          Jan 4 at 17:24




          Because $sigma_{t+tau}=sigma_{t}$.
          – Davide Giraudo
          Jan 4 at 17:24












          This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
          – Hilbert
          Jan 4 at 17:33






          This is the very relation that I am trying to prove/understand , how is this equality justified : $$sigma(t+tau) =(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t+tau)])^frac{1}{2}~=~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2}~ =? ~(operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]-operatorname{E}^2[X(t)])^frac{1}{2} $$ So basically why : $$operatorname{E}[X^2(t)]~ =~operatorname{E}[X^2(t+tau)]$$ ?
          – Hilbert
          Jan 4 at 17:33




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061808%2fcorrelation-coefficient-of-a-wss-process%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          An IMO inspired problem

          Image
          14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
          Read more

          Management

          Image
          Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
          Read more

          Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

          Image
          36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
          Read more