Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

solve the system of linear equations using the Gauss–Jordan elimination method. 2x-3y=8 4x+y=-2

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

|dw:1361067093589:dw|
|dw:1361067118822:dw|
ugh I missed that one on my paper! that subtraction because -16-(-2) is - 14

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

anyway|dw:1361067211535:dw|
|dw:1361067247174:dw|
|dw:1361067302376:dw|
|dw:1361067336310:dw|
|dw:1361067340708:dw|
|dw:1361067371987:dw|
I'm using elementary row operations.
oh crud
spotted anotehr error. not my day today
|dw:1361067436003:dw|
arghhh...
ok really...I put this in reduced row echleon form. got my solution, but geez doesn't even equal back into the equation
Hmm... Try to do it again...
Since you've made a mistake in the first operation, it's hard to get the right answer :|
something is wrong with the y
ok let's redo this
|dw:1361067604121:dw|
augmented matrix [a b]
|dw:1361067630686:dw| triangles indicate main diagonal
so I have to get rid of the 4 and the -3.
2row 1 - row 2 --> row2
Hmm.. My usual practice is -2R1 + R2 -> R2
do you mean \[R_2\to R_2-2R_1\] @UsukiDoll
yes
|dw:1361067762579:dw|
|dw:1361067803078:dw|
so now... to get rid of the -3... 7row1 -3row2 --->row1
Why not do this: -1/7 R2 -> R2
achhhhhhhhhhhh
I don't wanna deal with fractions
But the answers are fractions :P
|dw:1361067930957:dw|
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I feel like Rarity Belle now
|dw:1361067978329:dw|
oh wait. sign errors everywhere. Is that why I am getting frustrateD?
wait a sec something is wrong already with row 2
|dw:1361068119755:dw|
|dw:1361068152547:dw|
Relax~~~ |dw:1361068054013:dw|
|dw:1361068165204:dw|
argh there could be so many combinations with this thing!
|dw:1361068179917:dw|
|dw:1361068217096:dw|
|dw:1361068228254:dw|
Just stop for a while, if you don't mind?
arghhhhhhhhhhhhh doing that got me x = 7
This is basically what you do for the first row operation -2R1 + R2 -> R2. I split it into two steps so that you can catch up the the arithmetic easier (I hope..) |dw:1361068290374:dw|
big numbers -_-
that means to get rid of the 6 I have to do 7r1 - 6r2
No?!
or -7r1+6r2
-.-
|dw:1361068464895:dw|
|dw:1361068472375:dw| main diagonal in triangles
|dw:1361068495592:dw|
|dw:1361068548208:dw|
Yup..Do you want to deal with big numbers or fractions?
|dw:1361068571208:dw|
I don't want to deal with fractions
|dw:1361068639980:dw|
Yes!!!
|dw:1361068650303:dw|
|dw:1361068693152:dw|
ok why the heck am I getting different answers despite the fact that I got it into reduced row echleon form. that's just...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
just earlier I got x = -1 and y = -2
Hmm.. Careless mistakes perhaps?!
now x = 1/7 y = -18/7
what!
The one x=1/7; y=-18/7 is right :\
-.- is there more than one answer to this? There could be many many things that I could have done here.
No.
x = 1/7 y = -18/7 \(\LARGE\checkmark\)
There are only 3 cases for system of linear equations.. 1. No solution 2. Exactly one solution 3. Infinitely many solution.
I had a truckload
A quick string of row operations \[R_2\to R_2-2R_1\\R_2\to R_2/7\\ R_1\to R_1+3R_2\\R_1\to R_1/2\], if you have gotten a different solution you must have a made a mistake somewhere, it is very easy to make mistakes using Gauss–Jordan elimination .
1. No solution with a row that has all zero entries on the left, but non-zero entry on right => system is inconsistent 2. Exactly one solution After elementary row operations, no. of rows = no. of unknowns (/columns) => system is consistent 3. Infinitely many solution. After elementary row operations, no. of rows < no. of unknowns => system is consistent
but...yeah I suppose because I have seen some matrices that had a row of zeros on the left but with a nonzero on the right that is an inconsistent system .. How is it possible to make a mistake when it's so hard to spot one? I mean...I could've used different operations on the matrix. The combinations are everywhere.
Gauss Jordan is worse than Gaussian
ohhhhh what happens if I did Gaussian and then Gauss Jordon
because the answers to the Gaussian are supposed to be the same as the Gauss Jordon
Gaussian Jordan = Gaussian then Jordan lol!!!
but sometimes when I put the matrix into echleon form I can see the steps to making it row reduced
|dw:1361069849783:dw|
Guassian told you to make the left an upper triangular matrix Jordan asked you to further make the left an identity matrix
*Gaussian
|dw:1361069869054:dw|
|dw:1361069916982:dw|
-____________________- this is just Gaussian... WHAT THEEEEE!!!!!!! I see y = -18/7 oh I haven't solved yet oops
|dw:1361070002077:dw|
Just a minute..
|dw:1361070023727:dw|
uighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh mind blown
Gaussian and then Gaussian Jordan yeahhhhh
I found the x = 1/7 just doing the Gaussian
|dw:1361070037568:dw|
yeahhhh...now I really should've done Gaussian first and then the Jordan version
Gaussian -> Make the left an upper triangular matrix Jordan -> Make the left an identity matrix Gaussian-Jordan => Make it an upper triangular matrix, then further make it an identity matrix. That's what Gaussan-Jordan is! Jordon helps you to get the answer by matching the left and the right That is for the row [1 0 | 1/7], you can tell immediately that x = 1/7 It's just the same as doing Gaussian elimination then back substitution.
dang that means I have to redo some practice problems...gawd not again wasting paper here.
oh yeah now I got it
yup works. I went way too ahead... x.x
so now I gotta correct all of these problems and write a proof...nice X___X
Callisto do you know how to write proofs? I got a partial first draft and I was wondering if you could critique it?
Are you doing high school maths or college maths?
college math
Proofs of??
like the one I am currently writing is a contradiction proof. contradicts a theorem at least 2-3 times
umm should I type it?
I.. didn't know what was a proof :S Please type it, if you don't mind!
*that instead of what
okkk... Let A and B be n x n matrices. Show that if AB is nonsingular then A and B must be nonsingular.(Hint Use Theorem 2.9) Theorem 2.9 states that the homogeneous system of n linear equations in n unknowns Ax = 0 has a nontrivial solution if and only if A is singular.
There's a contradiction....namely because if Matrix A is singular, then the inverse of Matrix A does NOT exist which means that AB doesn't exist as well.
It also has something to do with the homogenous system as well.
because basically a homogeneous system is always consistent. However, a homogeneous system's solution is always 0 and it's a trivial solution. Nontrivial solution in a homogenous system means that the solution IS NOT 0 at all!
so, what is given before proving is that A and B are n x n matrices A and B must be nonsingular AB is also nonsingular Theorem 2.9
If a matrix is nonsingular, an inverse exists...so Theorem 2.9 doesn't work at all
Forgive me, I don't understand the part "... which means that AB doesn't exist as well" I understand if A is singular, A^(-1) doesn't exist, but not the which means part..
oh yeah this is just a rough draft of it
hmm if A is nonsingular, an inverse exists. I remember back from Theorem 1.5 that it was AB=BA=In. B is the inverse of A. hmmm..if A is singular, yes the inverse doesn't exist. Let's have B = the inverse of A. Matrix A is singular Inverse doesn't exist so B doesn't exist AB is impossible to achieve unless A is nonsingular
Hmm.. \[AA^{-1} = A^{-1}A=I\]provided that \(A^{-1}\) exists... ------------- But what about \(B \ne A^{-1}\)? And we also have to show that B is also non-singular?!
I know. What if we let A be the inverse of B?
that would be Matrix B A = B^-1 BB^-1 = identity matrix
What if \(A \ne B^{-1}\) and \(B \ne A^{-1}\) ?
I think that the only way that occurs is if A and B are singular
Hmm.. I'm sorry that I don't know how to do it :( @hartnn Would you mind giving a hand here? The problem we are discussing now is: Let A and B be n x n matrices. Show that if AB is nonsingular then A and B must be nonsingular.(Hint Use Theorem 2.9) Theorem 2.9 states that the homogeneous system of n linear equations in n unknowns Ax = 0 has a nontrivial solution if and only if A is singular.
is it necessary to use that theorem ? can't we go like this way ? if AB is non-sing., \(|AB| \ne 0 \implies |A||B|\ne 0\) for that both |A|and |B| must not =0, so...
if need to use contradiction, then let any1 of the A or B be singular, say A , then |A| =0, then |A||B|=0 , then |AB|=0 which is a contardiction....hence, neither A nor B can be 0
*contradiction, * neither A nor B can be singular
omg how did u get that so fast?
because i knew the property that singularity means determinant = 0.....so something related to determinants should be there... and also, |AB|= |A||B|
I haven't learned determinants yet. That's chapter 3 in my book
What if I'm forced to use that Theorem? then what?
but can we use that if AB is non-singular, then |AB| not =0 ....grrrr, i guess not ..
nnooo...
using advanced things aren't allowed otherwise my prof will get suspicious.
determinants is a topic that my class didn't even learn yet, so if I put that on my proof, then I will get into trouble
he was like DON'T USE ANYTHING THAT WASN'T INTRODUCED!!!!!!!!! IT'S A BAD IDEA
ok ok wait....
whats wrong with this logic ? " Theorem 1.5 that it was AB=BA=In. B is the inverse of A. hmmm..if A is singular, yes the inverse doesn't exist. Let's have B = the inverse of A. Matrix A is singular Inverse doesn't exist so B doesn't exist AB is impossible to achieve unless A is nonsingular "
What if B =/= inverse of A?
what if B isn't the inverse of A?
:/
so many contradictions everywhere. That's all I can get out of this thing.
nontrivial solution in a homogenous system is NOT a 0, so how the heck can Ax =0?
I gotta go...bye... x__X
just last small try.
let A and B be singular, then Ax =0 and Bx =0 [not sure about this step.]-----------------> (AB)x = 0 has a non-trivial solution,----->AB = singular. ------>a contradiction, not sure whether it works....
^ actually it does. thanks :D

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question