You are not logged in.
#1 2011-06-24 09:46:32
- MathsIsFun
- Administrator
Offline
Inverse of a Matrix
I have three new pages for you all to look at (and comment on):
Inverse of a Matrix
Inverse of a Matrix using Elementary Row Operations Gauss-Jordan
Inverse of a Matrix using Minors Cofactors and Adjugate
Enjoy! (And find any faults, too, please)
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
#2 2011-06-24 10:57:13
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Inverse of a Matrix
Hi MIF;
On the first one, Inverse of a matrix.
It is all correct, appealing to the eye and well thought out. Why did you choose the form of row vectors rather than the more common form of column vectors?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#3 2011-06-24 11:58:33
- MathsIsFun
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Inverse of a Matrix
I think perhaps I should, as it is the more common form. But it leads people to think that the heights (number of rows) are "naturally" matched ... if you see what I mean. When you approach it the other way then you need to think more about sizes of rows and columns.
Please let me know your thoughts.
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
#4 2011-06-24 14:54:59
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Inverse of a Matrix
That is okay with me. Then keep it the way that is more didactic.
Second page is excellent.
Third page also fine as far as I can tell. I never used that method before. Actually I have never computed an adjoint or cofactor of a matrix.
Thanks for providing the pages.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.