Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was directed by a community member to a resource on how to calculate the row echelon form of a matrix here. The resource says:

First we wish to put A into reduced row echelon form. There are several ways to do those (and
thus several matrices P), but here is one possible way: (calculation next)  

So, I understand that a given matrix can have multiple row echelon forms.

To continue my self-study of linear algebra further, I looked at the example on wikihow.
It gives a simple 3x3 matrix and shows how to calculate the row echelon form. Fair enough.

As in wikihow, the given matrix is:
$$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 2 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 3 & 4 & 5 \end{bmatrix} $$
and the row echelon form is this:
$$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & -2 \\ \end{bmatrix} $$
However, my answer is different and I am not sure if it is correct

My calculation on the same matrix:

  • Attempting to get all zeros under $A_1_1$ as:
  • $R_2$ - $R_1$ -> $R_2$
    $(3\times R_1$) - $R_3$ -> $R_3$
    So, the matrix is:
    $$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & -1 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} $$

  • Attempting to get all zeroes under $A_2_2$ as:
  • $R_2$ + $R_3$ -> $R_3$
    So the matrix is:
    $$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 2 \\ \end{bmatrix} $$

    The only difference is that I have a $2$ in bottom right and wikihow has $-2$.
    Is it correct ?

    share|improve this question
        
    yes, there are multiple echelon forms. For example you can continue multiplying third row by (-1) and get the other answer. Or you can add any multiple of a lower row to an upper row and still keep the echelon form. (What is unique is the reduced row echelon form where you insist pivots must be 1 and all other elements a pivot column should be zero.) –  Maesumi Jun 4 '13 at 8:12
        
    @Maesumi is there a rule that $3XR_3 - R_1$ -> $R_3$ because $R_3$ was the first operand ???? –  Little Child Jun 4 '13 at 8:13
        
    You can use the addition of rows $m R_n \pm R_k$ however you like (so long as $n\ne k$). Here to get zero you can use $3R_1-R_3$ or $R_3-3R_1$. The typical standard notation in text books is to use $mR_n + R_k$. –  Maesumi Jun 4 '13 at 8:20
    1  
    @Maesumi so my answer is correct :) Plus, there was a mistake in WIkiHow which I had to correct –  Little Child Jun 4 '13 at 8:28

    1 Answer 1

    up vote 1 down vote accepted

    You're getting different answers because you're subtracting $R_3$ from $3 R_1$. Usually, you subtract $3 R_1$ from $R_3$ (you can add or subtract rows, but you're changing the sign on $R_3$ here: we often choose to do it this way because adding or subtracting a multiple of a row keeps the determinant the same).

    So, to get Wikihow's answer, you should have taken $R_3 - 3R_1 \to R_3$ instead. This also explains the sign flip, since $R_3 - 3R_1 = - ( 3R_1 - R_3 )$.

    share|improve this answer

    Your Answer

     
    discard

    By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

    Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.