Transforming Linear Algebra Equations: Solving for Unknown Parameters

courtrigrad
Messages
1,236
Reaction score
2
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 2-\alpha\\\alpha \end{array}\right) =\left(\begin{array}{cc} 2\\0\end{array}\right) +\alpha\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1\\1\end{array}\right).How did you get rid of the parameter \alpha to transform it into an equation?

thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
could you rephrase the question please?

transform what into an equation?
 
I know that \left(\begin{array}{cc} 2-\alpha\\\alpha \end{array}\right) =\left(\begin{array}{cc} 2\\0\end{array}\right) +\alpha\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1\\1\end{array}\right) is equivalent to y = -x+2. How do we get this? The first matrix, I know, is the point (2,0). The second matrix is a direction vector, but I don't know where to go from there.
 
Ah, I see. He's starting with a parametric equation for a line:

\left(\begin{array}{c}x \\ y\end{array}\right) =<br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc} 2-\alpha\\\alpha \end{array}\right) =\left(\begin{array}{cc} 2\\0\end{array}\right) +\alpha\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1\\1\end{array}\right)

and he wants to know how to turn it into an implicit form. (i.e. the solutions to an equation)


There's a simple approach that works: just take the equations

x = 2 - \alpha

y = \alpha

and eliminate the variable \alpha.


There's a highbrow approach too, that (IMHO) is a good example to learn.

To simplify things, let me write the original equation as:

\vec{z} = \vec{b} + \alpha \vec{v}

In order to get rid of \alpha, you need to multiply by something that kills off \vec{v}: you want a good matrix A such that A \vec{v} = 0. Well, that's just a left-nullspace matrix computation! (i.e. the columns of A^T are a basis for the nullspace of \vec{v}^T)

In this case, we get something like

A = \left(\begin{array}{cc}1 &amp; 1\end{array}\right)

And so the desired equation is

A \vec{z} = A \vec{b}

which you can check reduces to x + y = 2.
 
Last edited:
thank you Hurkyl.
 
P.S. why did I kill off \vec{v} by using a matrix such that A\vec{v} = 0, rather than using a matrix such that \vec{v}A = 0?
 
because multiplication of matrices is not commutative?
 
Noncommutativity is why the choice matters.

I can kill off the \vec{v} term by finding a matrix A such that \vec{v}A = 0, and then getting the equation

\vec{z} A = \vec{b} A[/itex]<br /> <br /> but for this particular problem, doing this is bad... whereas doing it the other way is good. Can you tell why?<br /> <br /> <br /> Edit: bleh, the full answer isn&#039;t as straightforward as I thought. Sorry about that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":frown:" title="Frown :frown:" data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":frown:" /> It&#039;s easy to see why the method in this post won&#039;t work (<i>A</i> is degenerate: it has zero columns), but I&#039;m too tired to explain why multiplying on the left works, and what to do in the more general case of something like:<br /> <br /> Z = B + \alpha M<br /> <br /> where Z, B, and M are all mxn matrices, rather than just vectors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top