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.

Say I am solving a system of linear equations using Gauss reduction. I have got it to this point: $$\left[\begin{array}{ccc|c} 1 & 0 & -1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$ It seems intuitive to me from basic arithmetic that it should be legal to do: $$\left[\begin{array}{cc|cc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$ as a step to writing a line equation in 3-space: $$\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix} = z\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ -1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$

However, is moving the vertical bar considered a legal matrix operation? (And is there a more technical name for the vetical bar that I ought to be using?)

share|improve this question
7  
The vertical bar is not formally part of the matrix at all -- it is just there to help you keep track of what you're doing, namely: applying the same row operations to the coefficient matrix and the constant column vector. So moving the bar is not a "legal matrix operation" at, because it is not a matrix operation at all. –  Henning Makholm Sep 20 '11 at 3:55
1  
Before you can ask whether it's legal, you have to specify what it means to have 2 columns on the right side of the vertical bar. Usually the augmented matrix [A|b], where A is a matrix and b is a column, is an abbreviated version of the equation Ax=b. But now you have matrices on both sides, so it's not clear what that means any more. The "equation" interpretation of Ax=b would mean, in your example above, that x has to be a 2 by 2 matrix. That is totally different from what you started with, in which x was a 3 by 1 matrix. –  Ted Sep 20 '11 at 3:56
2  
What do you expect to achieve by doing this? It seems to me that you are misunderstanding something... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 20 '11 at 4:30
    
@Mariano Suárez-Alvarez The idea is simply to interpose another step to reduce the risk of making a mistake. I could always move out of matrix notation, but going out of it and then back into it means that to be more explicit I am actually doing more work. –  Kazark Sep 20 '11 at 5:05
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I have thot about this more, with the help of the comments above, which I will cite in my answer.

The answer is no, moving the vertical bar is not a valid matrix operation, because:

  1. It is not a matrix operation at all (Henning Makholm)
  2. If it were to be defined as a matrix operation, it would be rather ambiguous (Ted)

However, the underlying matrix operations that were behind the idea are valid. The idea is just as $$\left[\begin{array}{ccc|c} 1 & 0 & -1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$ implies

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right]$$

So $$\left[\begin{array}{cc|cc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$$ would imply

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array}\right] = z \left[\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ -1 \\ 0 \end{array}\right] + \left[\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right]$$

which is legal, and solves the problem of switching in and out of the matrix notation and should provide a good intermediate step, as desired, even if it is not quite as succinct. It also makes the next steps much more clear: do the matrix multiplication on the LHS, add $$ \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ z \end{pmatrix} $$ to both sides of the equation, and simplify.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.