Solving Gaussian Elimination Algorithm Problems (Matrices)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving Gaussian elimination problems involving matrices. The user struggles with correctly applying the algorithm and achieving accurate results, particularly with backward substitution and precision requirements. Clarifications are sought on how to handle precision in calculations and the conditions for matrix inconsistency. It is noted that a row of zeros with a non-zero entry in the augmented column indicates no solution, regardless of its position in the matrix. The conversation emphasizes understanding the implications of row operations and the structure of the augmented matrix for determining 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.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Back
Top