New Reply

Weird failure of Cramers Rule

 
Share Thread
Aug10-12, 09:01 AM   #1
 

Weird failure of Cramers Rule


This is very weird, but I found an inconsistency in the application of Cramer's Rule for a 3x3 simple linear matrix.


1x + 1y + 0z = 3
-1x + 3y + 4z = -3
0x + 4y + 3z = 2

Dz =
1 1 3
-1 3 -3
0 4 2

If you take the determinant across the first row To find Dz, I constantly get -16

If you take the determinant across any other rows or columns, you get the correct Dz = 8

What is going on?????????

Help please.
PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com

>> City-life changes blackbird personalities, study shows
>> Origins of 'The Hoff' crab revealed (w/ Video)
>> Older males make better fathers: Mature male beetles work harder, care less about female infidelity
Aug10-12, 09:48 AM   #2
 
Not really going to be able to help without seeing a step by step calculation. I get 8 no matter which minor I choose to expand by.
Aug10-12, 10:01 AM   #3
 
Omg! Sorry... I calculated incorrectly by forgetting a negative.

My mistake was

1(6-12)

It should have been
1(6-(-12))

Thanks
Aug10-12, 10:03 AM   #4
 

Weird failure of Cramers Rule


Quote by epsilonOri View Post
This is very weird, but I found an inconsistency in the application of Cramer's Rule for a 3x3 simple linear matrix.


1x + 1y + 0z = 3
-1x + 3y + 4z = -3
0x + 4y + 3z = 2

Dz =
1 1 3
-1 3 -3
0 4 2

If you take the determinant across the first row To find Dz, I constantly get -16

If you take the determinant across any other rows or columns, you get the correct Dz = 8

What is going on?????????

Help please.

What do you mean by "to take the determinant across a row? Do you mean to calculate it wrt the
minors determined by that row? Let's see:
[tex]\left|\begin{array}{rrr}1&1&3\\-1&3&-3\\0&4&2\end{array}\right|= 1\cdot\left|\begin{array}{rr}\,3&-3\\\,4&2\end{array}\right|+(-1)\cdot\left|\begin{array}{rr}-1&-3\\0&2\end{array}\right|+3\cdot\left|\begin{array}{rr}-1&3\\0&4\end{array}\right|=(6+12)-(-2)+3(-4)=18+2-12=8[/tex]

If you meant the above then the result is 8, which is hardly surprising as this is the matrix's determinant ; if you

meant something else then I can't say.

DonAntonio
New Reply

Similar discussions for: Weird failure of Cramers Rule
Thread Forum Replies
Using laplace transforms to solve IVP... problems with cramers rule Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
Cramers Rule and unique solutions Linear & Abstract Algebra 2
Using cramers rule for chemical equations Materials & Chemical Engineering 0
3 point problem and Cramers Rule Earth 2
Cramers Rule and Determinants - A more detailed analysis Precalculus Mathematics Homework 2