Quantcast

A community for students.

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

DLS

  • 2 years ago

Find the inverse of the following Matrix.

  • This Question is Closed
  1. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    2 ways to invert any invertable matrix: Augment on the identity, solve the first for the identity and the identity you adjoined becomes the inverse. 2) Find the adjoing, multiply that by the inverse of the determinant of the original.

  2. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    \[\LARGE \left[\begin{matrix}2 & 3 \\ 5 & 7\end{matrix}\right]\] Using elementary transformations only. I want to know how to think on this question or any shortcuts or such,establishing a relation between 2.3.5 and 7..

  3. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Ah, using elementary transformations is method 1.

  4. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    yes I know

  5. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    OK. There is only one shortcut, than that would be finding the determinant to see if it is invertable or not. Other than that, it is jsut elementary operations. The best ways to do those depend on preferences and if you like working with fractions or not.

  6. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    If you like fractions, do 5/2 times the first row and use the result to eliminate the first column from the second row. Otherwise, it is the typical back and forth.

  7. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    \[\LARGE A^{-1}=\frac{A_{adjacent}}{|A|}\] I can find the A^-1 using this but I wnt toknow the method 1

  8. waterineyes
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    For two by two matrix, there is a shortcut method to determine the inverse of the matrix..

  9. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    anything else than these 2? and does it involve elementary operations?it is necessary to use that,i would like to know it though :)

  10. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    \[\LARGE \left[\begin{matrix}2 & 3 &1 &0\\ 5 & 7 &0 &1\end{matrix}\right]\] That is the only way to start it for if you are required to solve through elementary operations and not allowed to use the Adj.

  11. waterineyes
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Oh no, that is just a trick to find the inverse in a jiffy..

  12. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    This must always be written as: \[\large A^{-1}=\frac{1}{det(A)}adj(A)\] You can not write this as: \[\large A^{-1}=\frac{adj(A)}{det(A)}\] Because the adjoint is a matrix and there is no such thing as dividing a matrix by a number. In fact, there as no such thing as dividing a matrix by anything. You are multiplying through by a quotent.

  13. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    \[\LARGE \left[\begin{matrix}2 & 3 \\ 5 &7\end{matrix}\right]=\left[\begin{matrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{matrix}\right]A\] I would use.. R1->R1/2 R2->R2-5R1 Then, R2-->R2/7 am i correct till here?

  14. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Why R2/7?

  15. waterineyes
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    7-15/2 = -1/2

  16. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Your first steps produce: \[\LARGE \left[\begin{matrix} 1 & 3/2 & 1/2 & 0\\ 0 & -1/2 & -5/2 & 1 \end{matrix}\right]\]

  17. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    OK. Want to see the rest with elementary row ops from that point, or work it and have us check? Either way, I can explain the why along the way.

  18. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    i got it ! thanks! :)

  19. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    OK. So you saw what we were talking about? I finished with: R1+3R2-->R1 \[\LARGE \left[\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & -14/2 & 3\\ 0 & -1/2 & -5/2 & 1 \end{matrix}\right] \] -2R2-->R2 \[ \LARGE \left[\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & -14/2 & 3\\ 0 & 1 & 5 & -2 \end{matrix}\right] \]

  20. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    yeah!

  21. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Which obviusly simplifies a little... hehe.. -7

  22. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Yah, once you get the basic principal, this is easy to do. Only problem is arithmetic errors. Those still kick me in the anatomy at times...

  23. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    is there any shortcut in this elementary method?

  24. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Not really. It is kind of the brute force thing. However, it works pretty easy no matter the size of the matrix. The problem with th adjoint method is very large matrixes where finding the cofactors becomes a recursive loop of determinants.

  25. DLS
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    hmm..okay! its more or less like Rubik's cube. :/

  26. e.mccormick
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    By recursive loop of determinants I mean: Start with a \(10\times 10\) matrix. To find the minor of the first row, first column, you need the determinant of a sub matrix that is everything remaining when you co0ver up the first row and first column. This means you need to get the determinant of a \(9\times 9\) matrix. Now you loop into another problem because to get this, guess what you need? The determinant of an \(8\times 8\) matrix... wheee. Where as by doing the augment with \(\mathrm{I}_n\) and solve, it becomes the shortcut for large matrices. For \(3\times 3\) and smaller, the adjoint method can be faster. It can even work faster for \(4\times 4\). But for really large ones, it just becomes too much work.

  27. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.