How to Find Inverse of a Matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter nanoWatt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
nanoWatt
Messages
85
Reaction score
2
Hi,

I'm taking a Calculus I class, so they won't be going into Matrices very much. That's more for Linear Algebra.

I'm going through an E&M book now (as a refresher from my Physics days of 7 years ago). This book assumes knowledge in getting the inverse of a matrix.

Using this site, I was able to find the inverse, by using row reduction. However, I was wondering if there is a quicker or easier way to find a matrix inverse.

http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_waner/RealWorld/tutorialsf1/frames3_3.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Be aware that finding the inverse can be a very long and laborious task. In fact, much of the time this is simply not done, and the inverse is either estimated, which can be done fairly easily to a reasonable degree of accuracy, or else ways around getting the inverse are used, e.g. gauss elimination followed by back substitution.
 
There are a number of different ways of finding an inverse matrix. In my opinion, "row reduction" is the simplest.
 
Another way is to use the fact that the inverse of A is the transpose of the matrix of cofactors of A divided by the determinant of A. Probably more calculations than row reduction, but I find it easier to remember. And for a given size matrix, it's pretty easy to program in Excel.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
69
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top