Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares
From: spasmous (spasmous_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/16/05
- Next message: spasmous: "CGNE and underdetermined least squares"
- Previous message: John Savard: "Flexible Floating-Point Standard Proposal (was: Decimal ... JOSS)"
- In reply to: Ray Koopman: "Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares"
- Next in thread: Ray Koopman: "Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares"
- Reply: Ray Koopman: "Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Mar 2005 11:33:51 -0800
Ray Koopman wrote:
>
> If the system is overdetermined then yes, you're doing weighted least
> squares, and the answer will depend on P. But if A is square and
> nonsingular then P should change nothing but roundoff error.
Thanks Ray, that now makes sense. So really that preconditioner should
come will a disclaimer or similar ;)
I've seen another popular type of preconditioner is to transform
A.x = b
into
A.P.x = b
This one looks statistically OK to me (ie. we are not weighting the
measurements in an arbitrary way).
- Next message: spasmous: "CGNE and underdetermined least squares"
- Previous message: John Savard: "Flexible Floating-Point Standard Proposal (was: Decimal ... JOSS)"
- In reply to: Ray Koopman: "Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares"
- Next in thread: Ray Koopman: "Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares"
- Reply: Ray Koopman: "Re: Preconditioning and weighted least squares"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|