pivot = leading entry
- From: "G Patel" <gaya.patel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Feb 2006 18:37:15 -0800
My Lin Alg prof uses "pivot column" and "leading entry column"
interchangeably all the time. She even says "pivot, or leading entry
if you like" vise versa a lot.
The text we use doesn't really explain pivots, and when it did lightly
touch on it, it was explained as a number used to zap zeros in all the
entries below it in the column. If that is the case, then the pivot
entries should be a subset (sometimes proper subset) of the set of
leading entries.
Am I right? Because sometimes when doing the pivotting, other entries
in other columns are zapped to zero, creating a leading entry
automatically with zeros below it (thus not needing to use this leading
entry at any time for pivotting)
Is my reasoning correct? Thanks for the help.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: pivot = leading entry
- From: Zdislav V. Kovarik
- Re: pivot = leading entry
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: pivot = leading entry
- Prev by Date: Nilpotent matrix
- Next by Date: Re: ISO example of a concrete "non-arithmetic" ring
- Previous by thread: twist on elementary row operation?
- Next by thread: Re: pivot = leading entry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
