Re: ? solving linear eqn
From: Cheng Cosine (acosine_at_ms13.url.com.tw)
Date: 11/24/04
- Next message: Dave Seaman: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Previous message: George Baloglou: "Re: naive questions regarding isometries"
- In reply to: Cheng Cosine: "? solving linear eqn"
- Next in thread: Reinhard: "Re: ? solving linear eqn"
- Reply: Reinhard: "Re: ? solving linear eqn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:22:42 -0700
"Cheng Cosine" <acosine@ms13.url.com.tw> wrote in message
news:co0p7n$oap$1@vegh.ks.cc.utah.edu...
>
> Given A*x = b, here x and b are vectors and A is a matrix, square or not.
>
> I saw the following:
>
> 1) given A, b and then solve for b
>
> but how about the following:
>
> 2) given x and b, solve for A?
>
Someone suggested to extend (2) into more general form that
all A, x, and b are matrix. Then I can easily analysis A*x = b
as what textbook usually taught to do for A*x = b as usual.
But this approach just remind me another linear equation below.
A*x+x*B = C
Here all are matrices. A is m-by-m and B is n-by-n, while both
x and C are m-by-n.
I read in some linear system books called this as Lyapunov equation,
and some interesting theorems are given. However, I don't see how
to analysize linear problems of this kind. To be more specific, in analyzing
A*x = b, I read ppl use the eigenvector or spectral expansion or more
generally the SVD. Then one can see when the solution exist and unique.
But I don't see any way to do analysis for A*x+x*B = C.
Any suggestions?
by Cheng Cosine
Nov/24/2k4 UT
- Next message: Dave Seaman: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Previous message: George Baloglou: "Re: naive questions regarding isometries"
- In reply to: Cheng Cosine: "? solving linear eqn"
- Next in thread: Reinhard: "Re: ? solving linear eqn"
- Reply: Reinhard: "Re: ? solving linear eqn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|