Solving Row Echelon Form: Practicing Tips for Students

AI Thread Summary
Reducing a matrix to row echelon form can be challenging, especially for students who struggle with the mechanical steps involved. Practicing with simpler problems, such as two or three variable systems with integer solutions, can enhance understanding. It is crucial to master the linear combination method, as it directly relates to the mechanics of matrix reduction. Careful attention to arithmetic is essential, as many errors stem from calculation mistakes. Following a systematic approach, starting from the upper left and progressing down and to the right, helps maintain the integrity of previously established "1"s and "0"s.
Cpt Qwark
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
For some reason I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of reducing a Matrix to row echelon form. I'm familiar with the steps that the textbooks and tutorials use and how it's done but when I try practicing on my own I feel lost. e.g. all I end up with are just a bunch of random entries that don't bear any resemblance to row echelon form.
How would I practice better for this?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Perhaps try working a simple problem, say a two or three variable system with integer solutions, in tandem with the linear combination method? If you understand linear combination then you know the mechanics of how to reduce a matrix to ref. Often times mistakes come from the arithmetic; make sure you double check each calculation.
 
While it might be possible to simplify the calculations for special matrices, in general "row-reducing" is a very "mechanical" procedure.
Here is the idea with a 3 by 3 general matrix:
\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \\ g & h & i\end{bmatrix}

I see that the "first column, first row" is "a" and I know I want "1" there so divide every number in the first column by a
\begin{bmatrix}1 & b/a & c/a \\ d & e & f \\ g & h & i\end{bmatrix}
Now, I see that the "first column, second row" and "first column third row" are "d" and "g" respectively and I want "0" there. So subtract the first row times d from the second row and subtract the first row times g from the third row. That gives
\begin{bmatrix}1 & b/a & c/a \\ 0 & e- bd/a & f- bd/a \\ 0 & h- bg/a & i- bg/a\end{bmatrix}

That completes the first column. Now look at the "second column, second row". It is "e- bd/a= (ae- bd)/a" and I want "1" there. So divide every number in the second row by (ae- bd/a)
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & b/a & c/a \\ 0 & 1 & \frac{af- bd}{ae- bd} \\ 0 & \frac{ah- bg}{a} & {ai- bg}{a}\end{bmatrix}
There is now \frac{ah- bg}{a} in the "second column, third row" and we want "0" there. So subtract \frac{ah- bg}{a} times the second row from the third row.
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & b/a & c/a \\ 0 & 1 & \frac{af- bd}{ae- bd} \\ 0 & 0 & {ai- bg}{a}- \frac{ai- bg}{a}\frac{ah- bg}{a}\end{bmatrix}

Start at the upper left and work down and to the right, doing one column at a time. That way, the "1"s and "0"s you already have won't be changed by further work.
 
  • Like
Likes Cpt Qwark
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top