MHB Where is the Mistake? Solving a System of Equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mistake
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on determining the values of 'a' for which a given system of equations has a single solution, no solution, or infinitely many solutions. It is established that when a=2, the third row becomes dependent on the second, leading to infinite solutions, despite the original system suggesting a single solution. The mistake arises from an improper row operation that eliminates the third row, creating confusion about the solution type. For a=-1, the system becomes undefined, while for a=3, it indicates no solution. The correct approach emphasizes avoiding certain row operations that can misrepresent the system's characteristics.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello

I have a system of equations with the question "for which values of a the system has: a single solution, no solution and infinite number of solutions". In addition, I have some solution, and I need to find the mistake in the solution, I need some help with it...

So, for which values of a, the next system:

2x+y=1
4x+ay+z=0
3y+az=2

has a single solution, no solution and infinite number of solutions ?

View attachment 434

if a=2, the matrix has proportional rows (r2 and r3), and we get infinite number of solutions. However, if we set a=2 in the original system, there is a single solution.

Where is the mistake ?

Thanks !
 

Attachments

  • system.JPG
    system.JPG
    13.6 KB · Views: 96
Physics news on Phys.org
You have it there in your graphic.

a = -1

This results in the third row disappearing, making an underfined system and infinitely many solutions.

a = 3

This results in an inappropriate result indicating no solution.

a = Anything Else

Unique Solution.
 
yes, but put a=2, you get

2 1 0 1
0 0 1 -2
0 0 -3 6

now multiply the 3rd row by (1/3) and add the 2nd row to it, you get:

2 1 0 1
0 0 1 -2
0 0 0 0

which is not a single solution...something is wrong here...
 
Yankel said:
yes, but put a=2, you get

2 1 0 1
0 0 1 -2
0 0 -3 6

now multiply the 3rd row by (1/3) and add the 2nd row to it, you get:

2 1 0 1
0 0 1 -2
0 0 0 0

which is not a single solution...something is wrong here...
The operation $R_3 \to (a-2)R_3 -3R_2$ is the culprit. When $a=2$, that has the effect of killing the third row and replacing it by a multiple of the second row. So it is hardly surprising that rows 2 and 3 are then proportional. This is not so in the original system, it is something that you have introduced by performing a dodgy operation.

In fact, operations of the form $R_i\to pR_i+qR_j$ are best avoided unless $p=1.$ What you should have done instead of $R_3 \to (a-2)R_3 -3R_2$ is $R_2\to \frac1{a-2}R_2.$ When $a=2$ that gives a division by zero, which should have sounded an alarm bell and warned you to treat that case separately.
 
Understood, thank you !
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K