Finding Inverse from Known Linear System

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the inverse of a known linear system represented by the equation A*x=b, where participants explore alternative methods to traditional matrix inversion techniques, particularly in the context of large systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using Cramer's rule as a potential method for finding the inverse of A.
  • Another participant expresses concern about the computational expense of Cramer's rule for large systems and proposes exploring other methods due to having a known transformation.
  • A mathematical approach is proposed involving the relationship x = A^-1 * b and the use of a dyadic product with a chosen vector d, although the participant acknowledges limitations in this method.
  • Clarification is sought regarding whether the goal is to solve for x or to find A^-1, with the focus confirmed to be on particular entries of A^-1.
  • The participant reiterates their idea of using a clever vector d to simplify the computation of (bd)^-1, while recognizing the challenges in applying tensor mathematics correctly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best method to find the inverse of A, with multiple competing ideas and approaches being discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of finding an inverse in large systems and the potential limitations of proposed methods, such as the use of dyadic products and tensor mathematics, which remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in linear algebra, particularly those dealing with large systems and alternative methods for matrix inversion, may find this discussion relevant.

Blue2Sky
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello All:
Suppose I have a completely known linear system: A*x=b. I know the matrix A, and an x and the associated RHS vector b (and it is non-trivial). Is there some tricky way to directly determine the inverse of A without performing an inversion by typical means (Gauss elimination, LU, etc) ?

Thanks much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
True. But my situation is that it is a large system. To use Cramer's rule would be expensive. I was wondering if because I have a known transformation (a known X and its corresponding B vector), that there may be something else that could be done.
For example, if I write
x = A^-1 * b
Then perform a dyadic product with a known vector, d, (of my choosing):
xd = A^-1 * bd
Then:
(xd)((bd)^-1) = A^-1

Something like this. However I know that you can't take an inverse of a dyad. This was my idea, but I just haven't used tensors in a long while and don't even know if what I am asking is possible.
Thanks
 
hey Blue, try using the LaTeX feature here. it helps you express your mathematical thinking and it helps us read what you express accurately.do you simply want to solve for \mathbf{x}? or do you want \mathbf{A}^{-1}?
 
Sorry. Yes I want \mathbf{A}^{-1} (actually, particular entries in \mathbf{A}^{-1}) . I have A and an x,b pair. My math from earlier (which I know you can't do unless the dyad is complete... but it was my original thinking):

\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{b}
Make dyadic product with clever vector \mathbf{d}:
\mathbf{xd} = \mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{bd}
then,
\mathbf{(xd)}\mathbf{(bd)}^{-1} = \mathbf{A}^{-1}

My thought was that \mathbf{d} could be chosen so that \mathbf{(bd)}^{-1} might be simple. Again the tensor math here is not correct, I just wanted to throw out my thought.
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K