Matrix determinants and differentiation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of matrix determinants and differentiation, specifically in the context of implicit differentiation of a system of equations involving two variables, u and v, that depend on x and y. Participants explore the transition from implicit differentiation to the use of determinants and Cramer's rule for solving the resulting linear equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a system of equations derived from implicit differentiation and expresses confusion about the transition to matrix determinants.
  • Another participant identifies the use of Cramer's rule for solving the linear system instead of Gaussian elimination, noting its advantages and disadvantages.
  • A third participant reformulates the equations to clear fractions and presents them in matrix form, confirming the use of Cramer's rule and suggesting it helps in tracking the numerator and denominator of the solutions.
  • Some participants discuss the appropriateness of Cramer's rule for symbolic versus numeric calculations, with differing opinions on its effectiveness in various contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the use of Cramer's rule for the problem at hand, but there is some disagreement regarding its efficacy for calculations compared to other methods like Gaussian elimination.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the reasoning behind the choice of Cramer's rule over Gaussian elimination, as well as the implications of using different methods for symbolic versus numeric calculations.

tickle_monste
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
I'm having trouble understanding where this concept comes from:
Step 1) If you start out with the following two equations

v + log u = xy
u + log v = x - y.

Step 2) And then perform implicit differentiation, taking v and u to be dependent upon both x and y:
(d will represent the partial derivative symbol):

dv/dx + (1/u)du/dx = y
du/dx + (1/v)dv/dx = 1

I can do some simple Gaussian reduction and obtain:
du/dx = [u(v-y)]/[uv-1] which is the same answer my book gives, the only difference is that my book uses this method to find du/dx:

Step 3)
det(Row 1:yu, u; Row 2: v, 1)/det(Row 1: 1, u; Row 2: v, 1)
which reduces to: (yu)(1) - (u)(v))/(1)(1) - (u)(v).
If the two matrices were A, and B, respectively, then:
a11 = yu, a12 = u, a21 = v, a22 = 1.
b11 = 1, b12 = u, b21 = v, b22 = 1
(sorry, I don't know how to put a real matrix into here)

And my problem is that I just don't understand where these matrices came from. I think this may be some formula from linear algebra that I just don't remember, but my book gives no reference to what it's doing, and goes directly from step 2 to step 3, so I'm really kind of lost right now. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks they used Cramer's rule to solve the linear system of equations, rather than Gaussian elimination. (They also cleared denominators before solving)

I couldn't guess why -- Cramer's rule is rather good for proving theorems but rather bad for calculation. I suppose the 2x2 case isn't quite so bad, though.
 
t_m:
Your system of equations for the derivatives is
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \frac 1 u \frac{du}{dx} + \frac{dv}{dx} &amp; = y \\<br /> \frac{du}{dx} + \frac 1 v \frac{dv}{dx} &amp; = 1<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Multiply the equations to clear fractions:

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \frac{du}{dx} + u \cdot \frac{dv}{dx} &amp; = uy\\<br /> v \cdot \frac{du}{dx} + \frac{dv}{dx} &amp; = v<br /> \end{align*}<br />

This can be put into matrix form as

<br /> \begin{bmatrix} <br /> 1 &amp; u \\ v &amp; 1<br /> \end{bmatrix} <br /> \, <br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> {du}/{dx} \\ {dv}/{dx}<br /> \end{bmatrix} =<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> uy \\ v<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br />

and, as Hurkyl said, Cramer's rule was apparently used. My only reasoning about why it was used in this case: by using Cramer's rule the numerator and denominator of the solutions are easier to keep track of than they are when you use Gaussian elimination.
 
I see, now it makes sense. Thanks for the help! Also, when I hover the mouse over those matrices you used it has some LaTeX script, can I just write that script into the text box on here? Or do you have do something else?
 
you need to enclose the latex markup in delimiters, like this:

[ t e x ]
your markup goes in here
[/ t e x]

I left the spaces in "tex" and "/tex" to avoid problems with my note. You do need the [] pair in each case.
 
Hurkyl said:
I couldn't guess why -- Cramer's rule is rather good for proving theorems but rather bad for calculation. I suppose the 2x2 case isn't quite so bad, though.

For two by two it doesn't matter but I thought Cramer's rule was good for symbolic calculations but not so good for numeric calculations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K