2x2 matrix elimination / substitution

martijnh
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm following an online course on linear algebra where matrix elimination was explained. They showed this for a 3x3 matrix, I wanted to test this with a 2x2 matrix but somehow managed to do something wrong..

I have two equations with 2 unknowns:
2x - y = 0
-x + 2y = 3

which coefficients should translate into this matrix:
Code:
[ 2  -1]
[-1   2]

2. The attempt at a solution
I eliminated the x coefficient in the second row by multiplying the first row .5 times and substracting that from the second. This results in:
Code:
[2  -1  ]
[0   2,5]

When I substitute back into the original equations I get
2.5y = 3 => y = 1.25
2x - y = 0 => 2x - 1.25 = 0 => x= 0.625

But this isn't correct for the second equation (which x component was eliminated). Where did it go wrong?

Thanks,

Martijn
 
Physics news on Phys.org
martijnh said:

Homework Statement



I'm following an online course on linear algebra where matrix elimination was explained. They showed this for a 3x3 matrix, I wanted to test this with a 2x2 matrix but somehow managed to do something wrong..

I have two equations with 2 unknowns:
2x - y = 0
-x + 2y = 3

which coefficients should translate into this matrix:
Code:
[ 2  -1]
[-1   2]

2. The attempt at a solution
I eliminated the x coefficient in the second row by multiplying the first row .5 times and substracting that from the second. This results in:
Code:
[2  -1  ]
[0   2,5]
You have two mistakes. You need to add 1/2 times the first row to the second row. That results in the second row being [0 3/2]
martijnh said:
When I substitute back into the original equations I get
2.5y = 3 => y = 1.25
2x - y = 0 => 2x - 1.25 = 0 => x= 0.625

But this isn't correct for the second equation (which x component was eliminated). Where did it go wrong?

Thanks,

Martijn
 
Doh *slaps forehead*

Thanks!
 
martijnh said:
Doh *slaps forehead*

Thanks!
Yes, that's the correct response.:biggrin:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top