| 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. |
| 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 RuleWhat 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 | ||