I Factoring Matrices with Elementary Row Operations

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding a sequence of elementary matrices for the matrix A = [[4, -1], [3, -1]]. The original poster's method involves multiple row operations, leading to their conclusion that A can be expressed as A = E1^(-1)E2^(-1)E3^(-1)E4^(-1). However, the book's answer suggests a different sequence: A = E2^(-1)E3^(-1)E4^(-1), which causes confusion. Participants note that the sequence of operations is not unique and that the steps taken can vary, with one suggesting a more efficient approach. Ultimately, the original poster confirms that their calculations align with the matrix A, indicating their method is valid despite being longer.
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
TL;DR
I am working on reviewing some Linear Algebra for a Graduate course in the Spring. I thought I did it correctly when I finished. But I looked in the book a different answer. I used my calculator to check the book answer and gives the correct matrix.
Dear Everybody,

I have some trouble with this problem: Finding a sequence of elementary matrix for this matrix A.

Let ##A=\begin{bmatrix} 4 & -1 \\ 3& -1\end{bmatrix}##. I first used the ##\frac{1}{4}R1##-> ##R1##. So the ##E_1=\begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{4} & 0 \\ 0& 1\end{bmatrix}##. So the matrix ##A= \begin{bmatrix}1 & \frac{-1}{4} \\ 3& -1\end{bmatrix}## we can use ##-3R1+R2->R2##. ##A''= \begin{bmatrix}1 & \frac{-1}{4} \\ 0& \frac{-1}{4}\end{bmatrix}## and ##E_2=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -3& 1\end{bmatrix}##. We multiply ##4R2->R2##,##A'''= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \frac{-1}{4} \\ 0& 1\end{bmatrix}## and ##E_3=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0& 4\end{bmatrix}##. Then we multiply 1/4 to row 2 and add to row 1,##A''''= \begin{bmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0& 1\end{bmatrix}## and ##E_4=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & \frac{1}{4} \\ 0& 1\end{bmatrix}##. So ##A={E_1}^{-1}{E_2}^{-1}{E_3}^{-1}{E_4}^{-1}##. But in the book's answer key, it said that ##A={E_2}^{-1}{E_3}^{-1}{E_4}^{-1}##.

I am confused as to why the book's answer is different from mine. I understand that the sequence is not unique. Here is the study guide's answer as well.
 

Attachments

Mathematics news on Phys.org
The pdf shows that row 1 doesn’t have a 4. Are you looking at the right solution?

When we did row reduction in Linear Algebra, we were taught to avoid adding/ subtracting fractions if at all possible so the notion of dividing by 4 to get a 1 in that row would not be considered. Instead we would add / subtract the rows to get a 1 meaning we’d go for the -1 column.
 
jedishrfu said:
The pdf shows that row 1 doesn’t have a 4. Are you looking at the right solution?
The PDF shows the resulting matrix after the row operation has been performed. The steps shown in the PDF are correct.

cbarker1 said:
So ##A={E_1}^{-1}{E_2}^{-1}{E_3}^{-1}{E_4}^{-1}##. But in the book's answer key, it said that ##A={E_2}^{-1}{E_3}^{-1}{E_4}^{-1}##.
I haven't taken the time to calculate all of the above inverses. Does the product you show come out to A? If so, then your work is correct, albeit slightly longer than what is shown in the PDF.
cbarker1 said:
I am confused as to why the book's answer is different from mine. I understand that the sequence is not unique. Here is the study guide's answer as well.
They used some different steps. You could have shortened your work a bit in step 3 by -1/4R2 + R1 --> R1, instead of what you did.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog and cbarker1
Mark44 said:
The PDF shows the resulting matrix after the row operation has been performed. The steps shown in the PDF are correct.I haven't taken the time to calculate all of the above inverses. Does the product you show come out to A? If so, then your work is correct, albeit slightly longer than what is shown in the PDF.

They used some different steps. You could have shortened your work a bit in step 3 by -1/4R2 + R1 --> R1, instead of what you did.
I checked with my calculator. My sequence is the same as the matrix given.
 
cbarker1 said:
I checked with my calculator. My sequence is the same as the matrix given.
Then the difference is just that you used some different steps.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu and cbarker1
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K