Need help on matrices using cramer's rule

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a system of equations using Cramer's rule, specifically the equations x - y + 3z = 8, 3x + y - 2z = -2, and 2x + 4y + z = 0. The user has calculated the solution as x = 1, y = -1, z = 2, and seeks clarification on whether this indicates a dependent equation. Responses confirm that the solution is unique and satisfies all equations, with the determinant of the coefficients not being zero. The consensus is that the user's solution is correct, and there is no dependency among the equations.
qdv
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I am learning how to solve a matrice using cramer's rule, and not sure if this is the correct answer.

Solve the following systems of equations
x - y + 3z = 8
3x + y - 2z = -2
2x + 4y + z = 0
so I figured out the solution is x = 1, y = -1, z = 2

but is this equation consider a
dependent equation that all solutions that satisfy x - y + 3z = 8 ??

thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
qdv said:
I am learning how to solve a matrice using cramer's rule, and not sure if this is the correct answer.

Solve the following systems of equations
x - y + 3z = 8
3x + y - 2z = -2
2x + 4y + z = 0
so I figured out the solution is x = 1, y = -1, z = 2

thanks

It's okay.The solution satisfies all equations and it's unique,therefore...Congratulations! :smile:

Daniel.
 
Online calculator

I solve it using a online calculator and I got

Cramer rule's solver step by step
Coeficients Matrix
1 -1 3 8
3 1 -2 -2
2 4 1 0
Δ = determinant1 -1 3
3 1 -2
2 4 1
Δ sub x = det8 -1 3
-2 1 -2
0 4 1
Δ sub y = det1 8 3
3 -2 -2
2 0 1
Δ sub z = det1 -1 8
3 1 -2
2 4 0
Δ = det1 -1 3
3 1 -2
2 4 1
1 -1 3
3 1 -2

[(1) (1) (1) + (3) (4) (3) + (2) (-1) (-2)] - [(3) (-1) (1) + (1) (4) (-2) + (2) (1) (3)]
(1) + (36) + (4)- (-3) + (-8) + (6)
( 41) - ( -5)
Δ = 46

Δx = det8 -1 3
-2 1 -2
0 4 1
8 -1 3
-2 1 -2

[(8) (1) (1) + (-2) (4) (3) + (0) (-1) (-2)] - [(-2) (-1) (1) + (8) (4) (-2) + (0) (1) (3)]
(8) + (-24) + (0)- (2) + (-64) + (0)
( -16) - ( -62)
Δx = 46

Δy = det1 8 3
3 -2 -2
2 0 1
1 8 3
3 -2 -2

[(1) (-2) (1) + (3) (0) (3) + (2) (8) (-2)] - [(3) (8) (1) + (1) (0) (-2) + (2) (-2) (3)]
(-2) + (0) + (-32)- (24) + (0) + (-12)
( -34) - ( 12)
Δy = -46

Δz = det1 -1 8
3 1 -2
2 4 0
1 -1 8
3 1 -2

[(1) (1) (0) + (3) (4) (8) + (2) (-1) (-2)] - [(3) (-1) (0) + (1) (4) (-2) + (2) (1) (8)]
(0) + (96) + (4)- (0) + (-8) + (16)
( 100) - ( 8)
Δz = 92

x =46/46

y =-46/46

z =-46/46

x =1

y =-1

z =2

-------
www.algebrasolver.totalh.com
 
Last edited:
qdv said:
I am learning how to solve a matrice using cramer's rule, and not sure if this is the correct answer.

Solve the following systems of equations
x - y + 3z = 8
3x + y - 2z = -2
2x + 4y + z = 0
so I figured out the solution is x = 1, y = -1, z = 2

but is this equation consider a
dependent equation that all solutions that satisfy x - y + 3z = 8 ??

thanks
What do you mean by "this equation"? It's not at all clear what your question is. Yes, as dextercioby said, and you could easily have checked, x= 1, y= -1, z= 2 satisfies the three equations and, since the determinant of coefficients is not 0, is the only solution to that system of equations.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top