Computers & Determinants

  • Thread starter amcavoy
  • Start date
  • #1
amcavoy
665
0
How do computers evaluate determinants of large matrices? The cofactor method seems like it would be too time consuming. Does anyone know?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
my guess would be row operations. even a naive method takes n-1 operations with n and multipkciations additions for the first column, n-2 operations with n-1 additions so approximately order n^4 operations to work out a diagonal form, then multiply the n thingst together, not much more work...so quite cheap really, and that's just the naive version.
 
  • #3
TOKAMAK
45
0
How would this fare computationally?

[tex] det(A) = \sum_{{i}_1, {i}_2,...,{i}_n = 1}^{N} \epsilon_{{i}_1, {i}_2,...,{i}_n} a_{{i}_1, 1} \cdot a_{{i}_2, 2} \cdot \cdot \cdot a_{{i}_n, N} [/tex]

Cumbersome and inefficient for a computer algorithm?
 
  • #4
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
Well, how much work is it? You do n multiplications how many times?
 
  • #5
TOKAMAK
45
0
Looks like if you pick out all the distinct terms (the ones in the summation that aren't equal to zero) you get (N!). On top of that, you would need to do N multiplications each time (so N multiplications N! times). Yikes

Yeah didn't work that one out before
 
  • #6
TheGinkgoNut
3
0
  • #7
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
I would think there are indeed many better ways than mine to find determinants. i would say mine is the best worst method or thee worst best method: the least complicated way of doing it that isn't naive. I've been told of other methods for speeding it up though i cant' recall them. of course when we think of a matrix we often think of something small with bige entries (ie integers) frequetly we need a clever method of finding it in the real world since we often have small entries, ie (numbers ivolved in the computation of) determinants so small that it may appear singular when it isn't.
 
  • #8
amcavoy
665
0
So row-reduction (to get 0-entries) would be more efficient? Or would that take a long time in itself?
 

Suggested for: Computers & Determinants

Replies
10
Views
535
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
599
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
144
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
485
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
702
Replies
1
Views
330
Replies
7
Views
131
Top