The above image seems a bit hard to read.
Here is another question similar in format, though, and it's clearer:
It's part of our matrices unit but I'm not sure how to incorporate that into this question.
.I usually write the constants in the same brackets as the large matrix here (to the furthest right side of the matrix, since that's what we were taught). So:
0 0 0 1 10
1 1 1 1 7
27 9 3 1 -11
64 16 4 1 -14
Is that right?
Would I use Gauss-Jordan to reduce that into reduced row-echelon?
I'm still confused about how to find the variables from there.
[QUOTE=TN17;604092].I usually write the constants in the same brackets as the large matrix here (to the furthest right side of the matrix, since that's what we were taught). So:
0 0 0 1 10
1 1 1 1 7
27 9 3 1 -11
64 16 4 1 -14
Is that right?/[quote]
Yes, that is what is meant by the "augmented" matrix.
Yes, you certainly could use Gauss-Jordan. I would be inclined to swap the first row to the last initially to getWould I use Gauss-Jordan to reduce that into reduced row-echelon?
I'm still confused about how to find the variables from there.
Then subtract 27 times the first row from the second, 64 times the first row from the third, etc.