Best method for LU decomposition

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jameson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decomposition Method
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods for LU decomposition, particularly in relation to a specific matrix example provided by the original poster. Participants explore various approaches to obtaining the upper triangular matrix \( U \) and the lower triangular matrix \( L \), while also considering the efficiency and applicability of different decomposition methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster describes a method for LU decomposition involving finding an echelon form for \( U \) and setting up a specific form for \( L \).
  • Some participants suggest that Cholesky decomposition is faster but only applicable to Hermitian positive matrices, while LU is preferred for multiple right-hand sides in equations.
  • One participant argues that Gaussian elimination with back substitution (GEBS) is superior for single equations \( Ax=b \), but notes potential round-off errors in large systems compared to iterative methods.
  • Another participant questions whether LU decomposition is indeed faster than using \( x=A^{-1}b \) for solving equations, suggesting a need to compare operations involved in both methods.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of decomposition methods when \( A \) is not invertible, emphasizing the importance of the method for finding \( L \) and \( U \).
  • Participants express interest in the various methods for LU decomposition outlined in different resources, with some favoring the method presented by the original poster.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the efficiency of LU decomposition compared to other methods like Gaussian elimination and \( x=A^{-1}b \). There is no consensus on which method is definitively superior, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach for LU decomposition.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the limitations of methods based on the properties of the matrix (e.g., whether it is Hermitian positive or invertible), but these aspects are not fully resolved in the discussion.

Jameson
Insights Author
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
13
Hi all,

I realize there might not be a "best method" but I want to ask if anyone has any improvements to the method taught in my class. I've looked at the Wikipedia page on this already.

Let's use the matrix [math]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2 & -1 & 2 \\ -6 & 0 & -2 \\ 8 & -1 & 5 \end{array} \right)[/math].

My teacher said to get the upper triangular matrix, $U$, we should simply find an echelon form of this matrix.

The quickest one for this appears to be [math]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2 & -1 & 2 \\ 0 & -3 & 4 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)[/math].

Now we need to find the lower triangular matrix, $L$. The way I was told to do this is by setting up another matrix in the following form: [math]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ a & 1 & 0 \\ b & c & 1 \end{array} \right)[/math].

Finally if we use the fact that [math]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ a & 1 & 0 \\ b & c & 1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2 & -1 & 2 \\ 0 & -3 & 4 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2 & -1 & 2 \\ -6 & 0 & -2 \\ 8 & -1 & 5 \end{array} \right)[/math]

then we should be able to solve for $a,b,c$. Is there a better method that anything uses or is this one just fine?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cholesky works faster, but is only applicable to Hermitian positive matrices. LU is used mostly for when you have multiple right-hand-sides of the equation $Ax=b$ to solve. If you have a single, straight equation $Ax=b$, then nothing, absolutely nothing, beats Gaussian elimination with back substitution (GEBS) for "exact" methods. I put exact in quotes because if very large systems, GEBS has worse round-off error than many of the iterative methods, so some of the iterative methods give you more accurate results. In particular, there are some very nice algorithms for sparse matrices that can be useful.
 
Ackbach said:
Cholesky works faster, but is only applicable to Hermitian positive matrices. LU is used mostly for when you have multiple right-hand-sides of the equation $Ax=b$ to solve. If you have a single, straight equation $Ax=b$, then nothing, absolutely nothing, beats Gaussian elimination with back substitution (GEBS) for "exact" methods. I put exact in quotes because if very large systems, GEBS has worse round-off error than many of the iterative methods, so some of the iterative methods give you more accurate results. In particular, there are some very nice algorithms for sparse matrices that can be useful.

We covered it with the explanation that if you have many equations in the form of $Ax=b$ for multiple $b$ then it's faster to use $x=A^{-1}b$ where $A$ is invertible and when it isn't or $A$ isn't a square matrix, then $LU$ decomposition can be employed. So if I have a non-square matrix then the method I outlined seems to be the fastest for decomposition, correct?
 
Well, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that $LU$ is faster than $x=A^{-1}b$ even when (obviously) $A$ is invertible. I'd have to count the operations for solving the $L$ and $U$ part, and compare to matrix multiplication.
 
Ackbach said:
Well, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that $LU$ is faster than $x=A^{-1}b$ even when (obviously) $A$ is invertible. I'd have to count the operations for solving the $L$ and $U$ part, and compare to matrix multiplication.

It very well might be. Didn't mean to imply that in my previous post, sorry. My main point was that when $A$ isn't invertible and you are solving for multiple $b$ then some kind of decomposition is necessary.

I'm more interested in the method of finding $L$ and $U$. On Wikipedia there are a couple of methods outlined and in my book there is a different one. I think among all of these I like the one in the OP best. Is that how you would find the $LU$ decomposition?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K