Gaussian Elimination, is this method OK?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Gaussian elimination to a matrix A and the resulting row operations. The user performed a row operation resulting in a different Row2 than the provided solution, leading to a query about correctness. It was clarified that both methods yield equivalent results, as the basis vectors for the kernel of A are scalar multiples of each other. Ultimately, the different approaches do not affect the span of the solution space, confirming that both methods are valid. The conversation emphasizes the flexibility in row reduction techniques within Gaussian elimination.
NewtonianAlch
Messages
453
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A=
<1, -3, -1, 1>
<2, -5, 0, 1>
<-3, 5, -6, 3>


What I did was Row2 = 2*Row1 - Row2 which renders Row2 as: <0, -1, -2, 1>

However in the solutions, Row2 was given as: <0, 1, 2, -1>, which appears to be R2 = -2R1 + R2

I'm guessing it makes no real difference, we were asked to calculate the basis of the kernel(A), to which I got <-8,-3,2,1>^{T} and the solutions gave <8,3,-2,-1>^{T}, probably because of the difference in row-reducing the second row.

Am I incorrect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NewtonianAlch said:

Homework Statement



A=
<1, -3, -1, 1>
<2, -5, 0, 1>
<-3, 5, -6, 3>


What I did was Row2 = 2*Row1 - Row2 which renders Row2 as: <0, -1, -2, 1>

However in the solutions, Row2 was given as: <0, 1, 2, -1>, which appears to be R2 = -2R1 + R2

I'm guessing it makes no real difference, we were asked to calculate the basis of the kernel(A), to which I got <-8,-3,2,1>^{T} and the solutions gave <8,3,-2,-1>^{T}, probably because of the difference in row-reducing the second row.

Am I incorrect?

No, your work is fine.
I prefer the method used in in the solutions for this problem, though, with R2 being replaced by -2R1 + R2.

The basis vector you got is a multiple of the one shown in the solutions. Both vectors span exactly the same space (a one-dimension subspace of R4).
 
Ah yes, that makes sense, it can be gotten by just multiplying by -1. Thanks for pointing that outt.
 
Back
Top