Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- From: "G Patel" <gaya.patel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Dec 2006 00:10:44 -0800
Han de Bruijn wrote:
Virgil wrote:
snip
Is there any particular reason why you need to use Cramer's rule?
There are much better methods.
Cramer's rule is only useful for very small matrices, BUT there are MANY
problems with such small matrices. Cramer's rule has the advantage that
it gives always an easy solution iff the matrix is non-singular. Integer
problems as the above can also be programmed in such a way that floating
point operations are avoided altogether, preserving an "exact" solution,
as you have demonstrated. An obvious drawback is that Cramer's rule very
quickly runs out of performance. Therefore use is delimited to matrices
with rank < 6 or 7 or some such. Quite a severe limitation, admittedly.
Han de Bruijn
rank 6 or 7? I think doing numeric examples with anything more than 4
with CR is not advisable.
OTOH, Cramer's rule is a great theoretical tool because it's gives
formulas for the solution. Other methods like Gaussian elimination are
"algorithms." It's tough to do proofs and such by using
variables/symbols with algorithms.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- References:
- 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- From: Uinseann
- Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- From: Virgil
- Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- From: Han de Bruijn
- 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: fredholm
- Previous by thread: Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- Next by thread: Re: 4x4 matrices using Cramer's Rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|