Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Gauss-Jordan complete elimination

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166

    Gauss-Jordan complete elimination

    Use Gauss-Jordan complete elimination to solve this linear system in four variables.

    $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}
    0&0&1&0\\
    0&1&0&0\\
    1&0&0&2\\
    0&0&2&0\end{bmatrix}$

    I've tried this question but can't get really far ... can anyone show a few steps on how to tackle this question
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,880
    Thanks
    1946
    Quote Originally Posted by tsal15 View Post
    Use Gauss-Jordan complete elimination to solve this linear system in four variables.

    $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}
    0&0&1&0\\
    0&1&0&0\\
    1&0&0&2\\
    0&0&2&0\end{bmatrix}$

    I've tried this question but can't get really far ... can anyone show a few steps on how to tackle this question
    If you have an equation $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{b}$ where A is a square matrix and x and b are column vectors, you should be able to solve the system of equations.

    But you haven't given x or b...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    If you have an equation $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{b}$ where A is a square matrix and x and b are column vectors, you should be able to solve the system of equations.

    But you haven't given x or b...
    oh yes yes you're absolutely correct...i haven't given you guys an x or b...i will now sorry
    b = $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}16\\4\\15\\0\end{bmatrix}$
    x = $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}x_1\\x_2\\x_3\\x_4\end{bmatrix}$

    but um i've tried using row operations...still i can't get to a final answer

    Thanks for your continued assistance
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,880
    Thanks
    1946
    Quote Originally Posted by tsal15 View Post
    oh yes yes you're absolutely correct...i haven't given you guys an x or b...i will now sorry
    b = $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}16\\4\\15\\0\end{bmatrix}$
    x = $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}x_1\\x_2\\x_3\\x_4\end{bmatrix}$

    but um i've tried using row operations...still i can't get to a final answer

    Thanks for your continued assistance
    This system of equations is nonsense.

    Multiply A by x you get...

    $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x}=\begin{bmatrix}x_3\\x_2\\x_1 + 2x_4\\x_3\end{bmatrix}$.

    So you have $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}x_3\\x_2\\x_1 + 2x_4\\x_3\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}16\\4\\15\\0\end{bmatrix}$.

    How can $\displaystyle x_3 = 16$ AND $\displaystyle 0$???
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    This system of equations is nonsense.

    Multiply A by x you get...

    $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x}=\begin{bmatrix}x_3\\x_2\\x_1 + 2x_4\\x_3\end{bmatrix}$.

    So you have $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}x_3\\x_2\\x_1 + 2x_4\\x_3\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}16\\4\\15\\0\end{bmatrix}$.

    How can $\displaystyle x_3 = 16$ AND $\displaystyle 0$???
    Do you mean that the matrix has infinitely many solutions? also how did you get your answer? also why did you not choose the method of reducing the matrix to a row echelon form? and how can you solve for $\displaystyle x_1$ and $\displaystyle x_4$ if $\displaystyle x_2$ nor $\displaystyle x_3$ is part of that equation?

    Thanks again for your continued support
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,880
    Thanks
    1946
    Quote Originally Posted by tsal15 View Post
    Do you mean that the matrix has infinitely many solutions? also how did you get your answer? also why did you not choose the method of reducing the matrix to a row echelon form? and how can you solve for $\displaystyle x_1$ and $\displaystyle x_4$ if $\displaystyle x_2$ nor $\displaystyle x_3$ is part of that equation?

    Thanks again for your continued support
    This is a system of the form $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{b}$.

    I could see that there were a lot of 0's in A, so just by using matrix multiplication, I could multiply A by x and get a vector that is equal to b.

    This system is not only unsolvable, it's nonsense. $\displaystyle x_1$ and $\displaystyle x_4$ can not be solved, and $\displaystyle x_3$ has to equal two different things at once in order for the system to make any sense at all.

    Are you sure you copied the matrix A down correctly?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    This is a system of the form $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{b}$.

    I could see that there were a lot of 0's in A, so just by using matrix multiplication, I could multiply A by x and get a vector that is equal to b.

    This system is not only unsolvable, it's nonsense. $\displaystyle x_1$ and $\displaystyle x_4$ can not be solved, and $\displaystyle x_3$ has to equal two different things at once in order for the system to make any sense at all.

    Are you sure you copied the matrix A down correctly?
    Oh my god you are absolutely correct... that matrix was for another question sorry to have wasted your time but this is the true matrix A:

    $\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}1&2&4&8\\1&-1&-2&2\\0&3&6&9\\-1&2&4&0\end{bmatrix}$

    Now, i've checked and double checked and so far this matrix A is correctly copied. also, x and b still are the same.

    Sorry to have caused such trouble
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    This is a system of the form $\displaystyle A\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{b}$.

    I could see that there were a lot of 0's in A, so just by using matrix multiplication, I could multiply A by x and get a vector that is equal to b.

    This system is not only unsolvable, it's nonsense. $\displaystyle x_1$ and $\displaystyle x_4$ can not be solved, and $\displaystyle x_3$ has to equal two different things at once in order for the system to make any sense at all.

    Are you sure you copied the matrix A down correctly?
    Sorry but can you still help? thanks Prove It
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,880
    Thanks
    1946
    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    1 & -1 & -2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    -1 & 2 & 4 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$

    Do [tex]R_2 - R_1[tex] and $\displaystyle R_4 + R_1$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & -3 & -6 & -6 & -12\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    0 & 4 & 8 & 8 & 16\end{array}\right]$

    Do $\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3}R_2$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    0 & 4 & 8 & 8 & 16\end{array}\right]$

    Do $\displaystyle R_3 - 3R_2$ and $\displaystyle R_4 - 4R_2$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3\\
    0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$.

    So we have...

    $\displaystyle 3x_4 = 3$ so $\displaystyle x_4 = 1$.

    Notice that we can not solve for $\displaystyle x_3$. So we call $\displaystyle x_3 = t$, an arbitrary parameter.

    Back substituting gives

    $\displaystyle x_2 + 2x_3 + 2x_4 = 4$

    $\displaystyle x_2 + 2t + 2(1) = 4$

    $\displaystyle x_2 = 2 - 2t$


    $\displaystyle x_1 + 2x_2 + 4x_3 + 8x_4 = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 + 2(2 - 2t) + 4t + 8(1) = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 + 4 - 4t + 4t + 8 = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 = 4$


    So $\displaystyle \mathbf{x} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
    1\\
    2 - 2t\\
    t\\
    1\end{array}\right]$.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    1 & -1 & -2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    -1 & 2 & 4 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$

    Do [tex]R_2 - R_1[tex] and $\displaystyle R_4 + R_1$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & -3 & -6 & -6 & -12\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    0 & 4 & 8 & 8 & 16\end{array}\right]$

    Do $\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3}R_2$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    0 & 4 & 8 & 8 & 16\end{array}\right]$

    Do $\displaystyle R_3 - 3R_2$ and $\displaystyle R_4 - 4R_2$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3\\
    0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$.

    So we have...

    $\displaystyle 3x_4 = 3$ so $\displaystyle x_4 = 1$.

    Notice that we can not solve for $\displaystyle x_3$. So we call $\displaystyle x_3 = t$, an arbitrary parameter.

    Back substituting gives

    $\displaystyle x_2 + 2x_3 + 2x_4 = 4$

    $\displaystyle x_2 + 2t + 2(1) = 4$

    $\displaystyle x_2 = 2 - 2t$


    $\displaystyle x_1 + 2x_2 + 4x_3 + 8x_4 = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 + 2(2 - 2t) + 4t + 8(1) = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 + 4 - 4t + 4t + 8 = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 = 4$


    So $\displaystyle \mathbf{x} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
    1\\
    2 - 2t\\
    t\\
    1\end{array}\right]$.
    hey, that is sooooo helpful, if only my textbook could be as helpful as you are thanks for your help Prove it
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    1 & -1 & -2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    -1 & 2 & 4 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$

    Do [tex]R_2 - R_1[tex] and $\displaystyle R_4 + R_1$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & -3 & -6 & -6 & -12\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    0 & 4 & 8 & 8 & 16\end{array}\right]$

    Do $\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3}R_2$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 3 & 6 & 9 & 15\\
    0 & 4 & 8 & 8 & 16\end{array}\right]$

    Do $\displaystyle R_3 - 3R_2$ and $\displaystyle R_4 - 4R_2$

    $\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{cccc|c}
    1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\
    0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4\\
    0 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3\\
    0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$.

    So we have...

    $\displaystyle 3x_4 = 3$ so $\displaystyle x_4 = 1$.

    Notice that we can not solve for $\displaystyle x_3$. So we call $\displaystyle x_3 = t$, an arbitrary parameter.

    Back substituting gives

    $\displaystyle x_2 + 2x_3 + 2x_4 = 4$

    $\displaystyle x_2 + 2t + 2(1) = 4$

    $\displaystyle x_2 = 2 - 2t$


    $\displaystyle x_1 + 2x_2 + 4x_3 + 8x_4 = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 + 2(2 - 2t) + 4t + 8(1) = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 + 4 - 4t + 4t + 8 = 16$

    $\displaystyle x_1 = 4$


    So $\displaystyle \mathbf{x} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
    1\\
    2 - 2t\\
    t\\
    1\end{array}\right]$.
    I did all the reduction parts but that was where i got stuck now i got something i can learn from So, how did you know we cannot solve for $\displaystyle x_3$? that is what has been holding me up from completing this question.

    Thanks again
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,880
    Thanks
    1946
    Quote Originally Posted by tsal15 View Post
    I did all the reduction parts but that was where i got stuck now i got something i can learn from So, how did you know we cannot solve for $\displaystyle x_3$? that is what has been holding me up from completing this question.

    Thanks again
    Because there isn't an equation we can back-substitute $\displaystyle x_4$ into that can give us JUST $\displaystyle x_3$.

    When we back substitute, we get an equation that has both $\displaystyle x_2$ and $\displaystyle x_3$.

    So the best we can do is write one of them in terms of the other.

    In other words, we can let $\displaystyle x_3$ be whatever we like, it won't change the system. The only thing that will change is $\displaystyle x_2$, because it depends on $\displaystyle x_3$.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    Because there isn't an equation we can back-substitute $\displaystyle x_4$ into that can give us JUST $\displaystyle x_3$.

    When we back substitute, we get an equation that has both $\displaystyle x_2$ and $\displaystyle x_3$.

    So the best we can do is write one of them in terms of the other.

    In other words, we can let $\displaystyle x_3$ be whatever we like, it won't change the system. The only thing that will change is $\displaystyle x_2$, because it depends on $\displaystyle x_3$.
    uhuh so does that mean we could've let $\displaystyle x_2$=t?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    MHF Contributor
    Prove It's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,880
    Thanks
    1946
    Quote Originally Posted by tsal15 View Post
    uhuh so does that mean we could've let $\displaystyle x_2$=t?
    Yep. Either of them can be kept arbitrary. We just take note that one depends on the other.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    From
    Melbourne
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Prove It View Post
    Yep. Either of them can be kept arbitrary. We just take note that one depends on the other.
    You have been very helpful thank you

    I don't know if i'm asking for too much here, but i've got another thread "Gaussian - Jordan Elimination" - would you be able to have some input on that? thanks again Prove It
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep 12th 2011, 09:03 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb 16th 2011, 02:06 PM
  3. Gauss-Jordan Elimination
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb 3rd 2011, 07:19 AM
  4. gauss-jordan elimination
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Apr 26th 2010, 10:41 AM
  5. Gauss-Jordan Elimination
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun 1st 2009, 01:59 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum