Solving Gaussian Elimination Algorithm Problems (Matrices)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around problems related to the Gaussian elimination algorithm applied to matrices. Participants are exploring issues with solving systems of linear equations represented in matrix form.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply Gaussian elimination and backward substitution but encounters difficulties with the results. They question the implications of precision in calculations and explore conditions for inconsistency in a different system of equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's queries, offering suggestions for alternative approaches and clarifying concepts related to inconsistency in systems of equations. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of specific row configurations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of showing work for clarity and understanding. There is a discussion about the implications of achieving a row of zeros in relation to the existence of solutions.

adc85
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I tried to solve this Gaussian elimination algorithm problem (matrices) but for some reason when I plug in the x variables it doesn't work. The problem is:

[ 3 10 4 : 7 ]
[ 2 7 3 : 5 ]
[ 1 3 2 : 2 ]

Alright so the first thing I did was divide the 1st row by 1/3 (scaling). Then I made the entries below the first pivot equal to 0 using:

Row2 = Row2 - Second Row, First Column * Row 1
Row3 = Row3 = Third Row, First Column * Row 1

Then I repeat this algorithm for the submatrix created afterwards (ignoring the first row and first column). Afterwards, I used backwards substitution (even tried using reduced echelon form). But I am not getting quite the right answers (very close for row 3 and the other two rows are fine though). Any input appreciated.

Also, I am having trouble understanding what my professor is saying when he says to solve a certain problem like this using 10^-3 precision for example. Do you just use the same method except placing decimal places at the end of each number or whatever?

Then he has this other weird problem that goes like:

[1 1 1 : 0]
[3 4 8 : 1]
[4 5 c^2 : c - 2]

What value of c would make this inconsistent (in other words, no solution)? I'm thinking that x3 could equal anything by making the last row full of zeros. Not sure though.

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As to your first question, can't tell you where you're going wrong if you don't show your work. Just a thought though: rather than starting off dividing (and immediately dealing with fractions) why not just swap the 1st & 3rd rows?

As to the second, I don't understand what you're asking.

As to the third, if you end up with all zeroes in the last row (i.e. by making c=3), you end up with a free variable, NOT an inconsistent system. So keep thinking about what value you can give to c, so you end up with zeroes in the first 3 columns but a non-zero value in the last column. THAT will be a system with no solution.
 
Thank you gnome.

So if any row has this set-up:

[ 0 0 0 : Non-Zero Number ]

Then it means that it has no solution? Even if it's the second row?
 
That's right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K