LU Factorization Homework Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubblesAreUs
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the LU factorization of a given matrix A, specifically examining the conditions under which A can be expressed as a product of a lower triangular matrix L and an upper triangular matrix U. Participants explore the implications of row permutations on the existence of such a factorization.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessity of swapping rows to achieve an LU factorization, with one suggesting that this transformation makes the matrix lower triangular. Others question the implications of not permuting the rows and the difficulty of proving the absence of an LU decomposition without such changes.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between row permutations and LU factorization. Some participants have provided insights into the structure of the matrix after row swaps, while others express uncertainty about the implications of their findings and the challenges of the original problem statement.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original matrix has a determinant of zero for a specific sub-matrix, indicating potential issues with LU factorization without row permutations. There is also mention of the complexity involved in proving the non-existence of an LU decomposition when the matrix is not altered.

BubblesAreUs
Messages
43
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Let

A =

4 -4 -1
4 -4 0
4 0 0

Use the criterion from the lectures to show that A does not have an LU factorisation such that A = LU with lower and upper triangular matrices L and U.

How can you re-arrange the matrix rows such that it is evident without much computation that the permuted matrix does have an LU factorisation.

Homework Equations



A = LU

L =
I11 0 0
I21 I22 0
I31 I32 I33

U =
U11 U12 U13
0 U22 U22
0 0 U33

The Attempt at a Solution



I solved part 1, but taking a 2x2 sub-matrix and showing that its determinant is zero. [-4 0 ; 0 0] ----> det =0

The second part where I have to show that A has an LU factorisation, I merely took A = LU and expanded upon that...

4 -4 -1 = I11 0 0 U11 U12 U13
4 -4 0 I21 I22 0 x 0 U22 U23
4 0 0 I31 I32 I32 0 0 U33

= I11U11 I11U12 U13
I21U11 I21U12 + I22U22 I21U13 + U22
I21U11 I31U12 + I32U22 I31U13 + I32U23 + U33

Let I11 = I22 = I33 = 1

= U11 I11U12 U13
I21U11 I21U13 + U22 I21U13 + U22
I31U11 I31U12 + I32U22 I31U13 + I32U23 + I33U33

Substituting the values of A into the LU, we get

=
U11 = 4 I11U12 = -4 U13 = -1
I21U11 = 4 I21U13 + U22 = -4 I21U13 + U22 = 0
I31U11 = 4 I31U12 + I32U22 = 0 I31U13 + I32U23 + I33U33 = 0

Now at this form, it's becoming obvious that row 1 and row 3 needs to be swapped. There is a single pivot on the left-most side of the third row, and that'll allow for an LU factorisation. Unfortunately, I can't really rationalise my position outside of that...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second part asks how you can rearrange the matrix rows to make it clear.
You have found that you need to swap rows 1 and 3, looking at the original matrix, does that make sense?
##A= \begin{bmatrix} 4&-4&-1\\4&-4&0\\4&0&0\end{bmatrix}, \hat A = \begin{bmatrix} 4&0&0\\4&-4&0\\4&-4&-1\end{bmatrix},##
By making that switch, you have made A into a lower triangular matrix from the outset. Your U in this case would just be the identity.
 
RUber said:
The second part asks how you can rearrange the matrix rows to make it clear.
You have found that you need to swap rows 1 and 3, looking at the original matrix, does that make sense?
##A= \begin{bmatrix} 4&-4&-1\\4&-4&0\\4&0&0\end{bmatrix}, \hat A = \begin{bmatrix} 4&0&0\\4&-4&0\\4&-4&-1\end{bmatrix},##
By making that switch, you have made A into a lower triangular matrix from the outset. Your U in this case would just be the identity.
Yes, I get that. It seems like the rest of the stuff I did earlier is probably not required.

Thanks RUber!
 
BubblesAreUs said:
Yes, I get that. It seems like the rest of the stuff I did earlier is probably not required.

Actually, it MAY be required. What you have shown so far is that if you permute the rows there is, indeed, an LU factorization. The first part asks you to show the opposite: if you do not change the matrix (eg., do not permute the rows) there is no LU decomposition. That seems much harder.
 
Ray Vickson said:
Actually, it MAY be required. What you have shown so far is that if you permute the rows there is, indeed, an LU factorization. The first part asks you to show the opposite: if you do not change the matrix (eg., do not permute the rows) there is no LU decomposition. That seems much harder.
Yes, for the first part, I essentially grabbed a sub-matrix and showed that its determinant is zero. To go any further than that would probably be quite tricky.

Thanks Ray
 
BubblesAreUs said:
Yes, for the first part, I essentially grabbed a sub-matrix and showed that its determinant is zero. To go any further than that would probably be quite tricky.

Thanks Ray

I could not follow the argument you presented.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K