MHB Question on solving system of equations with constants....

datahead8888
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
It's fairly straight forward to find information on how to solve a system of equations like this:

2x + 3y + 4z = 1
3x + 4y + 3z = 2
4x + 5y + 3z = 3

It has numerical constants in front of each term. You could use Gaussian elimination and solve for one, infinite, or no solutions. (The above example is completely random). It works because you can cancel terms out.

It's a bit less straightforward to find information on how to solve it when you have constants represented by symbols:
ua*x + ub*y + uc*z = 1
va*x + vb*y + vy*z = 2
x + y + z = 3

Here we want to solve for x, y, and z, each expressed in terms of ua/ub/uc/va/vb/vc only. You can't use elimination here because terms such as ua and va will not cancel out. (This example is slightly random too - I just need to learn the technique).

The only method I'm aware of is substitution, though it seems to spill onto multiple pages (the above system is simpler than what I need to solve). Is there any easier way to attack something like this? Any links to online references would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a 3 x 3 system such as you have here, Cramer's Rule isn't too bad. Because it's all determinants, though, it gets computationally unwieldy very quickly.
 
Ackbach said:
For a 3 x 3 system such as you have here, Cramer's Rule isn't too bad. Because it's all determinants, though, it gets computationally unwieldy very quickly.

That looks extremely helpful. It probably still requires mangling, but it least it gives a lot of order to the mangling. I especially like how wikipedia already has standard forms posted.

I'll post back if I have issues - thanks a lot!
 
I'm not so sure elimination doesn't work here. Assuming you meant subscripts $u_{a}$, etc., we have:

$$
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|c} u_a &u_b &u_c &1 \\ v_a &v_b &v_c &2 \\ 1 &1 &1 &3 \end{array}\right]_{ \begin{align*}R_{1} & \leftrightarrow R_{3} \\ R_3 & \leftrightarrow R_2 \end{align*}} \to $$
$$ \left[\begin{array}{ccc|c}1 &1 &1 &3 \\ u_a &u_b &u_c &1 \\ v_a &v_b &v_c &2 \end{array}\right]_{ \begin{align*}-u_a R_1+R_2 &\mapsto R_2 \\ -v_a R_1 + R_3 &\mapsto R_3 \end{align*}} \to $$
$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc|c}1 &1 &1 &3 \\ 0 &u_b-u_a &u_c-u_a &1-3u_a \\ 0 &v_b-v_a &v_c-v_a &2-3v_a \end{array}\right]_{R_2/(u_b-u_a) \mapsto R_2} \to
\left[\begin{array}{ccc|c}1 &1 &1 &3 \\ 0 &1 &\frac{u_c-u_a}{u_b-u_a} &\frac{1-3u_a}{u_b-u_a} \\ 0 &v_b-v_a &v_c-v_a &2-3v_a \end{array}\right], \quad \text{for } u_b-u_a\not=0.
$$
Continuing on with the row operation $-(v_b-v_a)R_2+R_3 \mapsto R_3$ yields
$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc|c}1 &1 &1 &3 \\ 0 &1 &\frac{u_c-u_a}{u_b-u_a} &\frac{1-3u_a}{u_b-u_a} \\ 0 &0 &\frac{(v_a-v_b)(u_c-u_a)}{u_b-u_a}+v_c-v_a &\frac{(1-3u_a)(v_a-v_b)}{u_b-u_a}+2-3v_a \end{array}\right].$$
Now you can do back substitution to finish.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top