Shortcut method for order 4 and above.

  • Thread starter Thread starter median27
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on finding shortcut methods for solving simultaneous equations with matrices of order 4 and above. While Gaussian elimination and Gauss-Jordan methods are the most efficient techniques, they can be time-consuming for larger matrices. Cramer's rule is deemed inefficient for practical numerical work. The conversation highlights the importance of using computational tools for larger systems, as manual calculations are prone to errors and time-consuming.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gaussian elimination and Gauss-Jordan methods
  • Familiarity with Cramer's rule for solving equations
  • Basic knowledge of matrix operations and properties
  • Experience with numerical methods for approximating solutions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research iterative methods for solving large systems of equations
  • Explore advanced engineering mathematics techniques for matrix reduction
  • Learn about computational tools for solving higher-order matrices
  • Investigate error analysis in manual calculations of simultaneous equations
USEFUL FOR

Students in advanced engineering mathematics, mathematicians, and anyone involved in solving large systems of simultaneous equations manually or using computational tools.

median27
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Is there shortcut methods for the solution of simultaneous equations when the given matrix is of order 4 and above? A more simplified technique other than Gaussian elimination and gauss-jordan method. Because when i solve orders ranging from 4 to 6, it takes me some time to finish it (30 mins and up) and barely get the right answers.

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cramer's rule works for any size matrices, but it's tedious. Gaussian elimination is usually the most efficient.
 
Cramer's rule is hopelessly inefficient compared with Gaussian elimination and gets even more inefficient as the matrix order increases.

It is an important theoretical result, but no practical use for numerical work.

Unless your matrix has some special properties that you can use, Gaussian elimination is as good as it gets to find an "exact" solution. For larger matrices there are iterative methods which will can be much quicker to find an approximate numerical solution.

But in "real" life nobody would ever solve a 4x4 system of equation by hand. That's what computers are for - or even programmable calculators, for systems as small as 4x4.
 
I'm on my advanced engineering mathematics subject and we are practiced to perform the calculations manually. My calculator can do the calculation but it only allows 3x3 matrices and can only be used for checking (for our professor required us to include the solution).

I've been experimenting on reducing higher ordered matrices (for fast and accurate solving) and came up with eliminating one variable at a time and substituting it to the remaining equations until it ends up with a 3x3 matrix (or atleast 2x2) then solve it by gauss jordan. But when i did the checking, my answer is not consistent for the rest of the equations other than the first one. But sometimes, it gives the correct answer.

Do you find my reducing method applicable (and only needs to be polished) or not?
 
median27 said:
Do you find my reducing method applicable (and only needs to be polished) or not?

You can do this (assuming that there exists a unique solution), but the chance for making arithmetic errors goes up, and you need to keep refining your matrix everytime you do this. I would stick with Gauss-Jordan elimination.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K