- 1,001
- 11
I have a book that goes though a detailed development of the following:
\left[\begin{matrix}J^TJ & J^TV\\ VJ & D \end{matrix}\right]\left[\begin{matrix}p_1 \\ p_2\end{matrix}\right] = \left[\begin{matrix}J^Tr\\ Vr + Ds \end{matrix}\right]
where V and D are diagonal matrices and everything is known except p_1 and p_2.
Then it says "since the lower right submatrix D is diagonal, it is easy to eliminate p_2 from this system and obtain a smaller n x n system to be solved for p_1 alone." The implication is that it's so easy, explanation isn't needed. However, I don't see it.
Can someone explain how to eliminate p_2 given D is diagonal?
I've managed to come up with:
[VJ(J^TJ)^{-1}J^TV - D]p_2 = VJ(J^TJ)^{-1}J^Tr - Vr - Ds
but this seems far more complicated than what is implied and I don't see how D being diagonal simplifies anything.
\left[\begin{matrix}J^TJ & J^TV\\ VJ & D \end{matrix}\right]\left[\begin{matrix}p_1 \\ p_2\end{matrix}\right] = \left[\begin{matrix}J^Tr\\ Vr + Ds \end{matrix}\right]
where V and D are diagonal matrices and everything is known except p_1 and p_2.
Then it says "since the lower right submatrix D is diagonal, it is easy to eliminate p_2 from this system and obtain a smaller n x n system to be solved for p_1 alone." The implication is that it's so easy, explanation isn't needed. However, I don't see it.
Can someone explain how to eliminate p_2 given D is diagonal?
I've managed to come up with:
[VJ(J^TJ)^{-1}J^TV - D]p_2 = VJ(J^TJ)^{-1}J^Tr - Vr - Ds
but this seems far more complicated than what is implied and I don't see how D being diagonal simplifies anything.
Last edited: