Solving for X inside of a 3X3Matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter smashbrohamme
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving a system of equations using Cramer's Rule within a 3x3 matrix context. The initial equation presented is x,1,2; 1,x,3; 0,1,2, set to equal -4x. The user constructs a 2x2 matrix and simplifies the equation to 2x^2 + x = 0, leading to the solutions x = 0 and x = -1. However, a critical error is identified in the simplification process, specifically in dividing by 2, which results in an incorrect conclusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Cramer's Rule
  • Familiarity with matrix operations
  • Knowledge of quadratic equations
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Cramer's Rule applications in larger matrices
  • Practice solving quadratic equations using factoring
  • Explore matrix determinant calculations
  • Review common pitfalls in algebraic simplification
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on linear algebra and quadratic equations, as well as anyone looking to improve their problem-solving skills in matrix-related contexts.

smashbrohamme
Messages
97
Reaction score
1
Using cramers rule.

the equation is.

x,1,2
1,x,3 all set to equal -4x
0,1,2


I made my 2x2 matrix like this

x|x,3| -1|1,3| +2|1,x|
|1,2| |0,2| |0,1|

eventually I ended up with x(2x-3)-1(2)+2(1)=-4x

condensed it down to 2x^2-3x=-4x

2x^2+1x=0
x(x+1)=0

x=0, or x=-1.

I go back to plug it in...and its wrong! :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you had your initial equation, 2x^2+x=0 and you divided by 2, you got an incorrect result.
 
smashbrohamme said:
2x^2+1x=0
x(x+1)=0

Little mistake in this step...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K