Matrices in reduced row-echelon form

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonyt88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Matrices
Click For Summary
Matrix (a) is not in reduced row-echelon form due to a nonzero value in the column of the leading one in row 2. Matrix (b) is confirmed to be in reduced row-echelon form. Matrix (c) raises questions as it has a leading one in row 3 without a leading one in row 2, which suggests it is not in the correct form. While some argue that row order does not affect the solution, the formal definition of reduced row-echelon form requires that no rows below a given row have their first non-zero member further to the left. Therefore, to meet the criteria, row 2 and row 3 must be swapped in matrix (c).
Tonyt88
Messages
62
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Determine which of the matrices below are in reduced row-echelon form:
a)
1_2_0_2_0
0_0_1_3_0
0_0_1_4_0
0_0_0_0_1

b)
0_1_2_0_3
0_0_0_1_4
0_0_0_0_0

c)
1_2_0_3
0_0_0_0
0_0_1_2

d)
0_1_2_3_4



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Okay, so I know for sure that (a) is not in reduced row-echelon form because the leading one in row 2 had a nonzero value in its column.

(b) is in reduced row-echelon form.

(c) is the one I'm most curious about. I feel that since there is a leading 1 in row 3, but that there is no leading 1 in row two (and to the left at that) that it's not in reduced row-echelon form, is this correct?

(d) I feel confident is in reduced row-echelon form.

Are all my thoughts correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tonyt88 said:
(c) is the one I'm most curious about. I feel that since there is a leading 1 in row 3, but that there is no leading 1 in row two (and to the left at that) that it's not in reduced row-echelon form, is this correct?

If it is so, what do you propose to reduce it? :wink:
 
To reduce it would you switch row 2 and 3?
 
Tonyt88 said:
To reduce it would you switch row 2 and 3?

You do not need to switch row 2 and 3. Only for the sake of aesthetics, perhaps. The system if completely reduced and you can read out all relevant information from the matrix.
 
radou is right: you do not need to swap row 2 and row 3, but "reduced row echelon form" has a formal definition and it is necessary to swap row 2 with row 3 to put c) in that form.
 
Well, I agree with the last part of what jalexanal said but, as a result, I would have to say "radou is wrong"! Just for solving equations or related problems, the order of rows does not matter but for this problem, to tell whether or not the matrices are in "reduced row echelon" form, it does matter. In reduced row echlon form, there must be no rows below a given row with first non-zero member further to the left.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K