corresponding to the r zero eigenvalues. Then:
Lemma 2. Under Assumption 3 and the conditions of Lemma 1,
■ ^ï
RrTD (1) Y1 ^F1(x)2dx
Fk(1)RrτD,Z
RrM(!) ft
RM z (Fk) n
V k 7
jointly in k = 1,...,m, where the Yk ’s andZ are independent q-variate standard normally
distributed, with Yk defined by (13). Moreover, Z does not depend on Fk .
Such weight functions Fk do exist. In particular,
Lemma 3. If Fk(x) = cos(2kπx), then the conditions (6) through (10) hold. Moreover, we then
have Fk(1) = 1, ʃʃFk(x)Fk(y)min(xy) dxdy = 1(kπ y2, ʃFk(x)2dx = 1.
There are many ways to choose these functions Fk, but as will be shown in section 5, the
above choice is optimal in some sense.
Denoting
Fk(x )2 dx
γ k = j
y ^^I^k(x )Fk((y )min(x, y ) dxdy
, δk
Fk (1)
↑∣ ʃFk (x )2 dx
(14)
it follows now easily from Lemmas 1-2:
More intriguing information
1. ESTIMATION OF EFFICIENT REGRESSION MODELS FOR APPLIED AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH2. REVITALIZING FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE
3. A Rare Case Of Fallopian Tube Cancer
4. Infrastructure Investment in Network Industries: The Role of Incentive Regulation and Regulatory Independence
5. EU enlargement and environmental policy
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Mergers under endogenous minimum quality standard: a note
9. Cardiac Arrhythmia and Geomagnetic Activity
10. CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF ACCOUNTING AS INFORMATIONAL SYSTEM AND ASSISTANCE OF DECISION