Help with Linear Algebra: Find Solutions & Verify

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around two linear algebra problems. The first problem involves finding an expression for x_n given the recurrence relation x_{n+1} = Ax_n, where the matrix A is provided. The initial response incorrectly omits the dependence on n, leading to clarification that the expression should include terms raised to the power of n. The second problem concerns verifying infinitely many least squares solutions, where the user initially misunderstands the requirement, but later realizes the correct approach involves using the least squares formula A^T Ax = A^T b. Ultimately, the user resolves their confusion regarding the second question.
shan
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
This first one, I just want to verify that I've understood what the question is asking.

It says: If x_{n+1} = Ax_{n}, write an expression for x_{n}. The matrix A = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2&0&0\\1&3&0\\-3&5&4\end{array}\right)

From what I understand, this question wants me to do an eigenvector decomposition so this is what I came up with (after finding the eigenvectors and eigenvalues):
x_{n} = c_{1}(4 * \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\\1\end{array}\right)) + c_{2}(3 * \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\\frac{-1}{5}\\1\end{array}\right)) + c_{3}(2 * \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}\\\frac{-1}{4}\\1\end{array}\right))
Is that what the question was asking for?? :confused:

The other question (or help I need) is this one: Verify that there are infinitely many least squares solutions which are given by x = \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{2}{7}\\\frac{13}{84}\\0\end{array}\right) + t \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{-1}{7}\\\frac{5}{7}\\1\end{array}\right)
It's talking about this system...
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3&1&1\\2&-4&10\\-1&3&-7\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}x_{1}\\x_{2}\\x_{3}\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c}2\\-2\\1\end{array}\right)

I multiplied both sides by the inverse of the matrix and got this system:
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}14&-8&30\\-8&26&-60\\30&-60&150\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}x_{1}\\x_{2}\\x_{3}\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c}-1\\13\\-25\end{array}\right)
and I then row reduced it to..
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}14&-8&30&1\\0&\frac{150}{7}&\frac{-300}{7}&\frac{95}{7}\\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right)
I thought I was going on the right track since I can see that this has infinitely many solutions but when I tried to find x...
x_{3} = t
x_{2} = \frac{19}{30} + 2t
x_{1} = \frac{13}{30} - t
which definitely does not verify the above question. Can someone tell me where I went wrong? Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
x_{n} = c_{1}(4 * \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\\1\end{array}\right)) + c_{2}(3 * \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\\frac{-1}{5}\\1\end{array}\right)) + c_{3}(2 * \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}\\\frac{-1}{4}\\1\end{array}\right))

Did you notice that there is no "n" in that? Are you claiming that xn is constant and does not depend on n? There should be some nth powers in there.

In (2) you've completely neglected the "least squares" requirement.
 
HallsofIvy said:
x_{n} = c_{1}(4 * \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\\1\end{array}\right)) + c_{2}(3 * \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\\frac{-1}{5}\\1\end{array}\right)) + c_{3}(2 * \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}\\\frac{-1}{4}\\1\end{array}\right))

Did you notice that there is no "n" in that? Are you claiming that xn is constant and does not depend on n? There should be some nth powers in there.

Ah, I think I see what you mean... so should it have been more like..
x_{n} = 4^(n+1) c_{1} \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\\1\end{array}\right) + 3^(n+1) c_{2} \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\\frac{-1}{5}\\1\end{array}\right) + c^(n+1) c_{3} \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}\\\frac{-1}{4}\\1\end{array}\right)

In (2) you've completely neglected the "least squares" requirement.
What do you mean by that? I thought that to solve a least squares problem, you use A^T Ax = A^T b where x represents the unknowns, in this case, x1, x2 and x3?
 
Oops, nevermind about the second question, I figured it out :)
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K