Row reduction to row echelon form
I'm having a lot of trouble with this question; I get everything being = 0 for 1a, which I think is wrong, and for 1b I can't get it into row echelon form. Could someone help me please?
Original post by nigelh456
I'm having a lot of trouble with this question; I get everything being = 0 for 1a, which I think is wrong, and for 1b I can't get it into row echelon form. Could someone help me please?
I could but I am off to work until 20.30 tonight
hopefully some one else might be around until then
Original post by nigelh456
I'm having a lot of trouble with this question; I get everything being = 0 for 1a, which I think is wrong, and for 1b I can't get it into row echelon form. Could someone help me please?
1a looks like it has a parametric solution.
Original post by zetamcfc
1a looks like it has a parametric solution.
I'm pretty bad at maths so I don't even know what that means hahaha could you explain it to me?
Original post by nigelh456
I'm having a lot of trouble with this question; I get everything being = 0 for 1a, which I think is wrong, and for 1b I can't get it into row echelon form. Could someone help me please?
Show working? Haven't checked but row reducing yields x = 0, y = (3/2)z for me
Original post by nigelh456
I'm pretty bad at maths so I don't even know what that means hahaha could you explain it to me?
Well first off, explain how you got everything being 0 for 1a.
Original post by zetamcfc
Well first off, explain how you got everything being 0 for 1a.
okay so I've figured out where I went wrong and redone it. Does this look okay?
Original post by nigelh456
okay so I've figured out where I went wrong and redone it. Does this look okay?
Looks good, don't have the time to go through b) but it's probably right
Original post by nigelh456
okay so I've figured out where I went wrong and redone it. Does this look okay?
I thought there couldn't be any non-zero elements above and below the leading 1 for reduced echelon form ?
Original post by A Slice of Pi
I thought there couldn't be any non-zero elements above and below the leading 1 for reduced echelon form ?
Lol, you're right, I just thought it wanted the answer. Well just a few more manipulations for OP to do, but nothing too drastic (I think).
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by zetamcfc
Lol, you're right, I just thought it wanted the answer. Well just a few more manipulations for OP to do, but nothing too drastic (I think).
This is what I get, but I have yet to check this...
Original post by A Slice of Pi
This is what I get, but I have yet to check this...
It's just the same, but you go all the way to RREF.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Linear algebra (basis)
- New Year, New Me
- I hate having big boobs
- Btec it level 3 unit 2
- HELP
- Spreadsheet maths help!
- Matrices question
- The Sports Hurt/heal game
- Linear algebra Gaussian elimination
- Proability question
- Would this routine be fine for maintaining muscle/physique
- Gym workout and Advice
- Chemistry help please !!!
- EPQ on top of 4 A-levels
- Adult nursing
- Can someone mark this for me please? (English lang paper 2 Q2 Jun2019)
- First year accommodation
- University of Exeter: Mardon Hall Accommodation (& Rowe House)
- Can someone explain this answer to me please?
- Physics question help please?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Did Cambridge maths students find maths and further maths a level very easy?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Did Cambridge maths students find maths and further maths a level very easy?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
