Fastest way to find inverse of 4x4 matrix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pyroknife
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary
The fastest way to find the inverse of a 4x4 matrix is often debated, with row reduction being a common method. While some suggest using the determinant and adjugate matrix, this can be inefficient due to the complexity of calculating multiple determinants and potential roundoff errors. Most participants agree that direct row reduction is generally quicker, despite its labor-intensive nature. The consensus leans towards row reduction being the preferred method for inverting 4x4 matrices. Ultimately, the choice of method may depend on the specific matrix and context.
pyroknife
Messages
611
Reaction score
4
What is the fastest way to find the inverse of a 4x4 matrix?

The only way I know is to set up the matrix with the 4x4 matrix and the identity matrix and row reduce. But that takes forever sometimes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pyroknife said:
What is the fastest way to find the inverse of a 4x4 matrix?

The only way I know is to set up the matrix with the 4x4 matrix and the identity matrix and row reduce. But that takes forever sometimes.

It is often (but not always) faster to use the determinant and the adjugate matrix.
 
gabbagabbahey said:
It is often (but not always) faster to use the determinant and the adjugate matrix.

It is hardly ever faster to use determinants. You would need to calculate 16 determinants, each of which is 3x3, so each involves 9 three-factor multiplications, plus keeping track of signs and worrying about roundoff error effects. Direct row-reduction is likely much faster in the vast majority of cases. And, yes, it can involve a lot of work, but that's life!

RGV
 
Personally, I've always felt that row-reducing was faster than finding the determinant.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K