stormyweathers
- 7
- 0
Hey guys.
In a project I'm working on, it would be very convienent to express the inverse of this matrix in terms of its size, NxN.
The matrix is
<br /> \leftbrace \begin{tabular}{c c c c}<br /> a & b & \ldots & b \\<br /> b & a & \ldots & b \\<br /> b & b & \ddots & b \\<br /> \vdots & vdots & ldots & b \\<br /> b & b & \ldots & b \\<br /> \end{tabular} <br /> \rightbrace <br />
[the tex isn't working, but the matrix is just constant b, except on the diagonal where it is a]
I can see a pattern in the inverses for N=2,3 ; the whole this is divided by det(A) and each element is given by the determinant of its corresponding cominor. This is great because it gives me a recursive formula for computing the inverse. But I'd like to be able to express it explicitly so I can write down the $$i^{th}$$ row in general
In a project I'm working on, it would be very convienent to express the inverse of this matrix in terms of its size, NxN.
The matrix is
<br /> \leftbrace \begin{tabular}{c c c c}<br /> a & b & \ldots & b \\<br /> b & a & \ldots & b \\<br /> b & b & \ddots & b \\<br /> \vdots & vdots & ldots & b \\<br /> b & b & \ldots & b \\<br /> \end{tabular} <br /> \rightbrace <br />
[the tex isn't working, but the matrix is just constant b, except on the diagonal where it is a]
I can see a pattern in the inverses for N=2,3 ; the whole this is divided by det(A) and each element is given by the determinant of its corresponding cominor. This is great because it gives me a recursive formula for computing the inverse. But I'd like to be able to express it explicitly so I can write down the $$i^{th}$$ row in general