What is the inverse of a matrix with an X?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rey242
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
rey242
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone!

Homework Statement


Find the inverse of the following using row reduction. If it does not exist, indicate clearly why.

3, 0, 6;
1, -2, x;
1, 2, 1;

2. The attempt at a solution

I started by augmenting with a 3 by 3 Identity matrix:
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
1, -2, x, 0, 1, 0;
1, 2, 1, 0, 0, 1;

Then I started using Gaussian Elimination until I hit a road bump:

3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
0, -2, x-3, 1/3, 1, 0;
0, 0, x-5, 0, 0, 1;

Should I just keep on pushing though? Or should I try to figure X out? Or is there some sort of theorem out there than can help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Keep pushing through. What conditions would make the "pushing through" invalid?
 
I'm going to guess you meant to start by taking (1/3) times the first row and subtracting it from the second row. Something has gone wrong already.
 
Ok, I reworked it and I got this:
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
0, -2, 1, 1/3, 0, -1;
0, 0, (X-3), -2/3, 1, 1;

So would this matrix not have an inverse since I can never get the Identity on the left? It seems like it I'll keep getting number when I do row reduction after this...
 
It's still wrong. Can you break this out one step at a time and say what you are doing? What happened to the x in the second row?
 
Are you saying that x-3 does not have a multiplicative inverse?
 
Dick said:
What happened to the x in the second row?
She swapped the second and third rows.
 
Here is my process:
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
1, -2, x, 0, 1, 0;
1, 2, 1, 0, 0, 1;

I multiplied -1/3 to r1 and added to r2 and got
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
0, -2, x-2, -1/3, 1, 0;
1, 2, 1, 0, 0, 1;

I then did the same and added to r3 and got
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
0, -2, x-2, -1/3, 1, 0;
0, 2, -1, -1/3, 0, 1;

I then added r2 to r3 and got
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
0, -2, x-2, -1/3, 1, 0;
0, 0, x-3, -2/3, 1, 1;

Then I added -r3 to r2 to get:
3, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0;
0, -2, 1, 1/3, 0, -1;
0, 0, x-3, -2/3, 1, 1;

So I got rid of the x in this step. Should I declare this not invertible?

EDIT: It's He by the way, lol
 
rey242 said:
Should I declare this not invertible?
No.

What is the multiplicative inverse of x-3?
Under what conditions does x-3 not have a multiplicative inverse?
 
  • #10
The multiplicative inverse is 1/(x-3), this does not apply when x=3...
Hmm... I was thinking about this before but I felt it wasn't right. Should I multiply row 3 by the multiplicative inverse ?
 
  • #11
D H said:
She swapped the second and third rows.

Oh, yeah. I see it now. Continue with your excellent help. And thanks for the exposition rey242.
 
  • #12
rey242 said:
Should I multiply row 3 by the multiplicative inverse ?
Give that man a prize!

With that you will have the third row in the desired form. The rest is just tedious elementary algebra. It's easy to make a mistake in all this tedious work. I suggest that you check your work at the end by multiplying the original matrix and its supposed inverse to make sure it really is the inverse.
 
  • #13
Thanks for all your help

I understand now.

I really appreciate it!
 
Back
Top