I Solving a system of equation with matrices

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrices System
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
I have the following system of equations: ##2t-4s=-2;~-t+2s=-1;~3t-5s=3##. With them, I form the matrix
\begin{bmatrix}
2 & -4 & -2 \\
-1 & 2 & -1 \\
3 & -5 & 3
\end{bmatrix}
Which turns out to be row equivalent to
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 11 \\
0 & 1 & 6 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
so ##s=11,~t=6##. However, this satisfies only the first and third equation and not the second. Shouldn't it satisfy all of the equations, since I got a valid result from doing row reduction?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you worked with ##A_{23}=-1## as in your second equation, or with ##A_{23}=-2## in your matrix?
And can the first two equations hold true simultaneously at all?
 
fresh_42 said:
Have you worked with ##A_{23}=-1## as in your second equation, or with ##A_{23}=-2## in your matrix?
And can the first two equations hold true simultaneously at all?
I fixed it. Am I doing the row reduction wrong? Should I be getting an inconsistent system?
 
Multiply the second equation by ##-2## and compare it with the first.
 
  • Like
Likes Mr Davis 97
fresh_42 said:
Multiply the second equation by ##-2## and compare it with the first.
2t - 4s = -2 and 2t - 4s = 2, which cannot be possible. So I guess I just did the row reduction wrong.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top