Can someone look at this and tell me what I did wrong to get this answer??? Will medal!

- anonymous

Can someone look at this and tell me what I did wrong to get this answer??? Will medal!

- Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com

Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)

- schrodinger

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

This took me so long to do I'm so upset... I was so proud of myself until I got that answer :(

- UsukiDoll

why does the formula require the inverse? Wait I see what the problem is. You don't have to include x y z you just include the numbers that are attached to the x y z in the set of linear equation s

Looking for something else?

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

## More answers

- anonymous

um, explain?

- anonymous

someone told me that the formula was A^-1*B...

- anonymous

and when I looked it up that was correct, using the inverse

- amistre64

inverses are such a pain, when they get big its sometimes more efficient to use augmented form.

- UsukiDoll

I think something happened to your calculations.. your x is huge

- UsukiDoll

that's what I was trying to say... put it in an augmented matrix format and use row operations...

- anonymous

I don't remember learning that I don't understand!

- amistre64

rref{
{1,1,1,4},
{4,5,0,3},
{0,1,-3,-10}
}
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=rref%7B+%7B1%2C1%2C1%2C4%7D%2C+%7B4%2C5%2C0%2C3%7D%2C+%7B0%2C1%2C-3%2C-10%7D+%7D

- amistre64

less room for error in my opinion

- UsukiDoll

do you see the original system of equations? YOu just put the numbers from the systems of equations like this
1 1 1 l 4
4 5 0 l 3
0 1 -3 l -10
and use row operations... you don't have a 0 in the main diagonal so row swapping isn't required.

- anonymous

just tell me what I did wrong so I can fix it and move on! I've been working on this problem for HOURS

- anonymous

lol math making people crazy when ever they can't find the answer ;D

- anonymous

I don't understand :'(

- anonymous

nothing nothing they are going help :D

- amistre64

your inverse has one bad spot ... row1 col3: should be -5

- anonymous

I used a calculator to find the inverse.... it shouldn't be wrong..... but I'll double check

- UsukiDoll

I would've used augmented version and use row operations..

- amistre64

it prolly had a negative, and you might have missed it ... but thats the trouble spot

- anonymous

oh... you're right @amistre64 I wrote it wrong...

- UsukiDoll

I've made plenty of mistakes on my exams xD! It's not a problem. xD

- anonymous

thank you so much... @amistre64 I'll calculate it now and look at my answer to see if its correct this time

- amistre64

-50 instead of +50, so your 100 off on the first row :)
100-98 = 2

- amistre64

good effort

- anonymous

haha thanks I'm not sure who to give the medal to... :P

- anonymous

@amistre64 can you give @UsukiDoll a medal for me since I medaled you?

- UsukiDoll

interesting.. so there is more than one method to solve this... my professor didn't even teach the inverse version... just told me to put it in augmented matrix form and row operations solve away until I have reduce row echelon form. So the final matrix wouldv'e looked like this
1 0 0 l 2
0 1 0 l-1
0 0 1 l 3
for x =2, y = -1, z=3

- anonymous

Much better :D

##### 1 Attachment

- UsukiDoll

yay :)

Looking for something else?

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