MHB Calculation of the inverse matrix - Number of operations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of the inverse of a regular n x n matrix using the Gauss algorithm and LU-decomposition. It is established that the inverse can be computed with n^3 + O(n^2) operations, where one operation is defined as a multiplication or division. The conversation highlights that LU-decomposition requires approximately 4/3 n^3 operations, while Gaussian elimination with back-substitution costs n^3 multiplications and n^3 + O(n^2) additions. Participants note the importance of considering both multiplication and addition operations in these calculations, as older references may overlook addition due to its relative speed. The overall conclusion emphasizes the efficiency of the Gauss algorithm in matrix inversion.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let A be a regular ($n\times n$)-Matrix, for which the Gauss algorithm is possible.

If we choose as the right side $b$ the unit vectors $$e^{(1)}=(1, 0, \ldots , 0)^T, \ldots , e^{(n)}=(0, \ldots , 0, 1 )^T$$ and calculate the corresponding solutions $x^{(1)}, \ldots , x^{(n)}$ then the inverse matrix is $A^{-1}=[x^{(1)}, \ldots , x^{(n)}]$.

We can calculate the inverse with $n^3+O(n^2)$ operations. (1 operation = 1 multiplication or division)
If we calculate the solutions $x^{(1)}, \ldots , x^{(n)}$ with the using the LU-decomposition we get $\frac{4}{3}n^3+O(n^2)$ operations, or not?

It is because we apply the the Gauss algorithm which requires $\frac{1}{3}n^3+O(n^2)$ operations, right?

How do we get $n^3+O(n^2)$ ?

Do we have to use an other algorithm here?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let A be a regular ($n\times n$)-Matrix, for which the Gauss algorithm is possible.

If we choose as the right side $b$ the unit vectors $$e^{(1)}=(1, 0, \ldots , 0)^T, \ldots , e^{(n)}=(0, \ldots , 0, 1 )^T$$ and calculate the corresponding solutions $x^{(1)}, \ldots , x^{(n)}$ then the inverse matrix is $A^{-1}=[x^{(1)}, \ldots , x^{(n)}]$.

We can calculate the inverse with $n^3+O(n^2)$ operations. (1 operation = 1 multiplication or division)
If we calculate the solutions $x^{(1)}, \ldots , x^{(n)}$ with the using the LU-decomposition we get $\frac{4}{3}n^3+O(n^2)$ operations, or not?

Hey mathmari! (Smile)

LU-decomposition is listed here as $\frac 23 n^3 +O(n^2)$, while QR-decomposition with Householder reflections (for numerical stability) is $\frac 43n^3+O(n^2)$. (Nerd)

mathmari said:
It is because we apply the the Gauss algorithm which requires $\frac{1}{3}n^3+O(n^2)$ operations, right?

How do we get $n^3+O(n^2)$ ?

Do we have to use an other algorithm here?

That's indeed to get the matrix in row echelon form.
Afterwards we still need to solve it for each of the n unit vectors, which takes $\frac 12 n^3 + O(n^2)$ extra if I'm no mistaken. (Thinking)
 
mathmari said:
We can calculate the inverse with $n^3+O(n^2)$ operations. (1 operation = 1 multiplication or division)

When comparing operation counts for different methods and from different references, it is perhaps useful (but maybe already known to all participating, in which case I apologize for stating the obvious) that older references sometimes neglect addition (which includes subtraction) because multiplication (which includes division) used to be the determining factor, as it was much slower.

I learned that inversion using Gaussian elimination with back-substitution costs $n^3$ multiplications (exactly) and $n^3 + O(n^2)$ additions. Interestingly, for Gauss-Jordan the count is precisely the same.

(Elimination with back-substitution for one system costs $\frac{n^3}{2} + O(n^2)$ multiplications and $\frac{n^3}{2} + O(n)$ (no typo) additions.)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top