MHB Are These Row Equivalent Matrices? Why Am I Getting Different Results?

Pull and Twist
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
I am having trouble with the following problem;

a.) Find a matrix B in reduced echelon form such that B is row equivalent to the given matrix A.

A=$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 2 & 3 & -1 \\ 3 & 5 & 8 & -2 \\ 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$

So using my calculator I am able to get,

B=$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 5/8 & 8/3 & -2/3 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$

The problem is that the book claims that B should be;

B=$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 2 & 3 & -1 \\ 0 & -1 & -1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$

Which is weird cause according to the row equivalency theorem, any B of A in REF should be the same unique row equivalent matrix. Why am I not getting the same result?? I am using a TI-83 Plus.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PullandTwist said:
I am having trouble with the following problem;

a.) Find a matrix B in reduced echelon form such that B is row equivalent to the given matrix A.

A=$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 2 & 3 & -1 \\ 3 & 5 & 8 & -2 \\ 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$

So using my calculator I am able to get,

Unfortunately, we cannot verify your calculator input, nor the accuracy of said calculator. Sorry about that.

B=$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 5/8 & 8/3 & -2/3 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$

The problem is that the book claims that B should be;

B=$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 2 & 3 & -1 \\ 0 & -1 & -1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$

Which is weird cause according to the row equivalency theorem, any B of A in REF should be the same unique row equivalent matrix. Why am I not getting the same result?? I am using a TI-83 Plus.

only RREF is unique, the matrix in your book appears to be properly calculated, but it is NOT in RREF, nor is your matrix $B$ (you have non-zero entries in row 1 above the leading one in row 2, as does the matrix in your book). The RREF can be found here:

Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine

I verified your book's answer, using the following steps:

a) Subtract 3 times row 1 from row 2
b) Multiply row 2 by -1
c) Subtract row 1 from row 3
d) Add row 2 to row 3

Row-reduction is a path fraught with peril, simple mistakes can ruin everything.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K