Solving a large under-determined system of linear equations

FrankST
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Dear All,

I have a linear system of equations such as Ax = b where A is a m-by-n matrix and m < n and A is a full rank matrix (rank(A) = m).

Since there are infinitely many solutions to this problem, I was looking for different methods to solve this problem. As I understood I can pose this problem as the following:

minimize 2-norm of x subject to: Ax = b

And I realized I can use pseudo inverse to find x . Here is my question:

1- Is the way I posed the problem correct or if there is an alternative way?

2- If A is a large and sparse matrix (like 30,000 by 200,000 matrix) is there a more efficient method to solve this problem (iterative methods) ?

3- If I want to impose additional constraints such that 0 <= x's <= 1 how can I do that ?



Thanks for your help,

Frank
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. not sure, but i'll side with you

2. maybe the method below would give you something for the computer. problem with iterating, is how long before it converges? you have a formula for that?

3. i think you want to look for minimizing least squares with constraints, which will change the formulas a little from your everyday least squares problem. you have to be careful though, because there's a million and one minimizing with constraint types of problems. if you don't make sure that you have the appropriate hypothesis met, you'll be pretty much wrong. for instance, keep in mind that your constraint is an inequality constraint, not an equality constraint.
 
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...
##\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...
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...
Back
Top