? pure lucky or something deep inside when estimating a matrix
- From: "Cheng Cosine" <acosine@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:31:04 -0400
Hi:
Given A*x = b with A unknown, a standard way to get A
is to have a set of linearly independent vectors x to form X
and the corresponding B to get A in this way: A = B*inv(X).
What I feel interesting is the following test that use only
some x's, but less than the dimension of A to get an estimate.
To me it seems that this approach gives "good" approximation
both on eigenvalues and eigenvectors. But I do not have a more
quantitatively way to measure how good this approximation is.
Also I am wondering if this is pure lucky or there is some thoery
behind. Or could there be a probablity estimate to this approach?
Thanks,
by Cheng Cosine
Jul/20/2k7 NC
A = hilb(7); [U S V] = svd(A);
X = rand(7,5); B = A*X; Ae = B*pinv(X);
[Ue Se Ve] = svd(Ae);
diag(S), diag(Se)
ans =
1.6609
0.2719
0.0213
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
ans =
1.5578
0.1847
0.0123
0.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Ue'*U
ans =
0.9995 0.0318 -0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000
-0.0318 0.9995 0.0010 -0.0030 -0.0001 0.0000 -0.0000
0.0028 -0.0010 0.9994 -0.0356 0.0005 -0.0000 0.0000
-0.0000 0.0030 0.0355 0.9978 -0.0563 -0.0008 -0.0000
-0.0000 0.0002 0.0015 0.0563 0.9982 -0.0182 -0.0003
-0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0033 0.1634 0.9865
0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0001 -0.0018 -0.0178 -0.9864 0.1635
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ? pure lucky or something deep inside when estimating a matrix
- From: Carl Barron
- Re: ? pure lucky or something deep inside when estimating a matrix
- Prev by Date: Re: Oh, go find a "closed list" of reviewers to verify your masterpiece of math
- Next by Date: Optimizing solution and calculating likelihoods analysis
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal "Pythagorean" Triples
- Next by thread: Re: ? pure lucky or something deep inside when estimating a matrix
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|