You are Here: Home >< Maths

Row Echelon Form watch

1. Hi guys, just a quick question on terminology.
For a matrix to be in row echelon form does the leading coefficient of each non zero row have to be 1. Im pretty certain its does, otherwise it would simply be classified as an upper triangular matrix, that is if its a square matrix.
I ask becauce there seems to be on the Gaussian Elimination page of wikipedia (yes I know wikipedia is certainly not the best place to be learning maths from, but I was just flicking through and saw this ) a description of this augmented matrix

as being in row echelon form, but to me thats just in upper triangular. Or rather the unaugmented matrix of coefficients is in upper triangular form, so would the augmented matrix even have a 'special' name. Thanks alot guys ;D
2. what would you classify this matrix as?

0 X X
0 0 X
0 0 0

or

0 X X
0 0 0
0 0 0

where the Xs are different numbers (not 0).
3. emmm ha, well the first I would say is a strictly upper triangular matrix, but (as far as I know as I still dont know the answer to my question ) it 'could' also be in row echelon form if the leading coeffiecients are 1, and the second, same it 'could' be in row echelon form.

Thanks for the post idun, not that I dont appeciate it or anything, I just still am not any closer to answer my question
Hi guys, just a quick question on terminology.
For a matrix to be in row echelon form does the leading coefficient of each non zero row have to be 1.
It hardly matters, surely?

The honest answer is probably that everyone's definitions are different. It really doesn't matter because once you're in upper triangular form, you can always very easily force the main diagonal to be made of 1s, after which you can put it into reduced form and get everything above the main diagonal to be zero.
5. Thank generalebriety , sure you are absolutly right, I suppose in the grand scheme of things it doesnt really matter, it was more my curiosity getting the better of me, thanks for the post guys.
Thank generalebriety , sure you are absolutly right, I suppose in the grand scheme of things it doesnt really matter, it was more my curiosity getting the better of me, thanks for the post guys.
Ah, don't see my post as dismissive. The point is that maths isn't all set in stone; people's definitions, notation, etc. vary (I've seen plenty of crazy definitions / notation) according to what they find most useful. Here, "row echelon form" is just a useful label for "a form that will allow us to do the things that row echelon form should allow us to do", which can be either of the above forms.
Hi guys, just a quick question on terminology.
For a matrix to be in row echelon form does the leading coefficient of each non zero row have to be 1. Im pretty certain its does, otherwise it would simply be classified as an upper triangular matrix, that is if its a square matrix.
No. For example

is upper triangular but not in row echelon form.

Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 7, 2010
Today on TSR

Top unis in Clearing

Tons of places at all these high-ranking unis

Poll
Useful resources

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Chat with other maths applicants