Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InSolving matrix equations of the form $XA = XB$Simultaneous EquationsSolving a set of linear equations for variables with non-constant valuesMistake in my NLP using Lagrange Multipliers?Solving equations system: $xy+yz=a^2,xz+xy=b^2,yz+zx=c^2$Solving simultaneous equations involving a quadraticMethods for solving a $4$ system of equationFunctions for fixed-point iteration on a nonlinear system of equationsSystem of simultaneous equations involving integral part (floor)Different ways of solving simultaneous equations

What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?

"What time...?" or "At what time...?" - what is more grammatically correct?

How to create dashed lines/arrows in Illustrator

"To split hairs" vs "To be pedantic"

What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?

Spanish for "widget"

Limit the amount of RAM Mathematica may access?

Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?

Is bread bad for ducks?

In microwave frequencies, do you use a circulator when you need a (near) perfect diode?

How come people say “Would of”?

Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?

Why is Grand Jury testimony secret?

Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?

Understanding the implication of what "well-defined" means for the operation in quotient group

What function has this graph?

How to change the limits of integration

Why is the maximum length of OpenWrt’s root password 8 characters?

Realistic Alternatives to Dust: What Else Could Feed a Plankton Bloom?

Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?

Deadlock Graph and Interpretation, solution to avoid

What is the use of option -o in the useradd command?

How to manage monthly salary

How can I create a character who can assume the widest possible range of creature sizes?



Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InSolving matrix equations of the form $XA = XB$Simultaneous EquationsSolving a set of linear equations for variables with non-constant valuesMistake in my NLP using Lagrange Multipliers?Solving equations system: $xy+yz=a^2,xz+xy=b^2,yz+zx=c^2$Solving simultaneous equations involving a quadraticMethods for solving a $4$ system of equationFunctions for fixed-point iteration on a nonlinear system of equationsSystem of simultaneous equations involving integral part (floor)Different ways of solving simultaneous equations










15












$begingroup$


We are asked to solve for $x$ and $y$ in the following pair of simultaneous equations:




$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$




I can multiply $(1)$ by $2$, yielding $6x + 4y = 72$, and subtracting $(2)$ from this new equation eliminates $4y$ to solve strictly for $x$; i.e. $6x - 5x = 72 - 64 Rightarrow x = 8$. Substituting $x=8$ into $(2)$ reveals that $y=6$.



I could also subtract $(1)$ from $(2)$ and divide by $2$, yielding $x+y=14$. Let $$beginalign3x+3y - y &= 36 tag1a\ 5x + 5y - y &= 64tag1bendalign$$ then expand brackets, and it follows that $42 - y = 36$ and $70 - y = 64$, thus revealing $y=6$ and so $x = 14 - 6 = 8$.



I can even use matrices!



$(1)$ and $(2)$ could be written in matrix form:



$$beginalignbeginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrixbeginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix&=beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrixtag3 \ beginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix &= beginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrix^-1beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &= frac12beginbmatrix4 &-2 \ -5 &3endbmatrixbeginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &=frac12beginbmatrix 16 \ 12endbmatrix \ &= beginbmatrix 8 \ 6endbmatrix \ \ therefore x&=8 \ therefore y&= 6endalign$$




Question



Are there any other methods to solve for both $x$ and $y$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    you can always take the row reduced echelon form of (3), which is just the first method made more systematic
    $endgroup$
    – K.M
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    you can use the substitution $y = 18 - frac 32 x.$ Or, you could use Cramer's rule
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    21 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is a linear system of equations, which some believe it is the most studied equation in all of mathematics. The reason being that it is so widely used in applied mathematics that there's always reason to find faster and more robust methods that will either be generic or suit the particularities of a given problem. You might roll your eyes at my claim when thinking of your two variable system, but soem engineers need to solve such systems with hundreds of variables in their jobs.
    $endgroup$
    – Mefitico
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I hope someone performs GMRES by hand on this system and reports the steps.
    $endgroup$
    – Rahul
    10 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since linear systems are so well studied, there are many approaches (that are essentially equivalent - but maybe not the iterative solution). As such, does this question essentially boil down to a list of answers, which is not technically on topic for this site?
    $endgroup$
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago















15












$begingroup$


We are asked to solve for $x$ and $y$ in the following pair of simultaneous equations:




$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$




I can multiply $(1)$ by $2$, yielding $6x + 4y = 72$, and subtracting $(2)$ from this new equation eliminates $4y$ to solve strictly for $x$; i.e. $6x - 5x = 72 - 64 Rightarrow x = 8$. Substituting $x=8$ into $(2)$ reveals that $y=6$.



I could also subtract $(1)$ from $(2)$ and divide by $2$, yielding $x+y=14$. Let $$beginalign3x+3y - y &= 36 tag1a\ 5x + 5y - y &= 64tag1bendalign$$ then expand brackets, and it follows that $42 - y = 36$ and $70 - y = 64$, thus revealing $y=6$ and so $x = 14 - 6 = 8$.



I can even use matrices!



$(1)$ and $(2)$ could be written in matrix form:



$$beginalignbeginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrixbeginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix&=beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrixtag3 \ beginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix &= beginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrix^-1beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &= frac12beginbmatrix4 &-2 \ -5 &3endbmatrixbeginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &=frac12beginbmatrix 16 \ 12endbmatrix \ &= beginbmatrix 8 \ 6endbmatrix \ \ therefore x&=8 \ therefore y&= 6endalign$$




Question



Are there any other methods to solve for both $x$ and $y$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    you can always take the row reduced echelon form of (3), which is just the first method made more systematic
    $endgroup$
    – K.M
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    you can use the substitution $y = 18 - frac 32 x.$ Or, you could use Cramer's rule
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    21 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is a linear system of equations, which some believe it is the most studied equation in all of mathematics. The reason being that it is so widely used in applied mathematics that there's always reason to find faster and more robust methods that will either be generic or suit the particularities of a given problem. You might roll your eyes at my claim when thinking of your two variable system, but soem engineers need to solve such systems with hundreds of variables in their jobs.
    $endgroup$
    – Mefitico
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I hope someone performs GMRES by hand on this system and reports the steps.
    $endgroup$
    – Rahul
    10 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since linear systems are so well studied, there are many approaches (that are essentially equivalent - but maybe not the iterative solution). As such, does this question essentially boil down to a list of answers, which is not technically on topic for this site?
    $endgroup$
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago













15












15








15


4



$begingroup$


We are asked to solve for $x$ and $y$ in the following pair of simultaneous equations:




$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$




I can multiply $(1)$ by $2$, yielding $6x + 4y = 72$, and subtracting $(2)$ from this new equation eliminates $4y$ to solve strictly for $x$; i.e. $6x - 5x = 72 - 64 Rightarrow x = 8$. Substituting $x=8$ into $(2)$ reveals that $y=6$.



I could also subtract $(1)$ from $(2)$ and divide by $2$, yielding $x+y=14$. Let $$beginalign3x+3y - y &= 36 tag1a\ 5x + 5y - y &= 64tag1bendalign$$ then expand brackets, and it follows that $42 - y = 36$ and $70 - y = 64$, thus revealing $y=6$ and so $x = 14 - 6 = 8$.



I can even use matrices!



$(1)$ and $(2)$ could be written in matrix form:



$$beginalignbeginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrixbeginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix&=beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrixtag3 \ beginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix &= beginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrix^-1beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &= frac12beginbmatrix4 &-2 \ -5 &3endbmatrixbeginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &=frac12beginbmatrix 16 \ 12endbmatrix \ &= beginbmatrix 8 \ 6endbmatrix \ \ therefore x&=8 \ therefore y&= 6endalign$$




Question



Are there any other methods to solve for both $x$ and $y$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




We are asked to solve for $x$ and $y$ in the following pair of simultaneous equations:




$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$




I can multiply $(1)$ by $2$, yielding $6x + 4y = 72$, and subtracting $(2)$ from this new equation eliminates $4y$ to solve strictly for $x$; i.e. $6x - 5x = 72 - 64 Rightarrow x = 8$. Substituting $x=8$ into $(2)$ reveals that $y=6$.



I could also subtract $(1)$ from $(2)$ and divide by $2$, yielding $x+y=14$. Let $$beginalign3x+3y - y &= 36 tag1a\ 5x + 5y - y &= 64tag1bendalign$$ then expand brackets, and it follows that $42 - y = 36$ and $70 - y = 64$, thus revealing $y=6$ and so $x = 14 - 6 = 8$.



I can even use matrices!



$(1)$ and $(2)$ could be written in matrix form:



$$beginalignbeginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrixbeginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix&=beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrixtag3 \ beginbmatrix x \ yendbmatrix &= beginbmatrix 3 &2 \ 5 &4endbmatrix^-1beginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &= frac12beginbmatrix4 &-2 \ -5 &3endbmatrixbeginbmatrix36 \ 64endbmatrix \ &=frac12beginbmatrix 16 \ 12endbmatrix \ &= beginbmatrix 8 \ 6endbmatrix \ \ therefore x&=8 \ therefore y&= 6endalign$$




Question



Are there any other methods to solve for both $x$ and $y$?







linear-algebra systems-of-equations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 19 hours ago









Rodrigo de Azevedo

13.2k41962




13.2k41962










asked 21 hours ago









user477343user477343

3,69931245




3,69931245







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    you can always take the row reduced echelon form of (3), which is just the first method made more systematic
    $endgroup$
    – K.M
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    you can use the substitution $y = 18 - frac 32 x.$ Or, you could use Cramer's rule
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    21 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is a linear system of equations, which some believe it is the most studied equation in all of mathematics. The reason being that it is so widely used in applied mathematics that there's always reason to find faster and more robust methods that will either be generic or suit the particularities of a given problem. You might roll your eyes at my claim when thinking of your two variable system, but soem engineers need to solve such systems with hundreds of variables in their jobs.
    $endgroup$
    – Mefitico
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I hope someone performs GMRES by hand on this system and reports the steps.
    $endgroup$
    – Rahul
    10 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since linear systems are so well studied, there are many approaches (that are essentially equivalent - but maybe not the iterative solution). As such, does this question essentially boil down to a list of answers, which is not technically on topic for this site?
    $endgroup$
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    you can always take the row reduced echelon form of (3), which is just the first method made more systematic
    $endgroup$
    – K.M
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    you can use the substitution $y = 18 - frac 32 x.$ Or, you could use Cramer's rule
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    21 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is a linear system of equations, which some believe it is the most studied equation in all of mathematics. The reason being that it is so widely used in applied mathematics that there's always reason to find faster and more robust methods that will either be generic or suit the particularities of a given problem. You might roll your eyes at my claim when thinking of your two variable system, but soem engineers need to solve such systems with hundreds of variables in their jobs.
    $endgroup$
    – Mefitico
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I hope someone performs GMRES by hand on this system and reports the steps.
    $endgroup$
    – Rahul
    10 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since linear systems are so well studied, there are many approaches (that are essentially equivalent - but maybe not the iterative solution). As such, does this question essentially boil down to a list of answers, which is not technically on topic for this site?
    $endgroup$
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
you can always take the row reduced echelon form of (3), which is just the first method made more systematic
$endgroup$
– K.M
21 hours ago




$begingroup$
you can always take the row reduced echelon form of (3), which is just the first method made more systematic
$endgroup$
– K.M
21 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
you can use the substitution $y = 18 - frac 32 x.$ Or, you could use Cramer's rule
$endgroup$
– Doug M
21 hours ago




$begingroup$
you can use the substitution $y = 18 - frac 32 x.$ Or, you could use Cramer's rule
$endgroup$
– Doug M
21 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
This is a linear system of equations, which some believe it is the most studied equation in all of mathematics. The reason being that it is so widely used in applied mathematics that there's always reason to find faster and more robust methods that will either be generic or suit the particularities of a given problem. You might roll your eyes at my claim when thinking of your two variable system, but soem engineers need to solve such systems with hundreds of variables in their jobs.
$endgroup$
– Mefitico
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
This is a linear system of equations, which some believe it is the most studied equation in all of mathematics. The reason being that it is so widely used in applied mathematics that there's always reason to find faster and more robust methods that will either be generic or suit the particularities of a given problem. You might roll your eyes at my claim when thinking of your two variable system, but soem engineers need to solve such systems with hundreds of variables in their jobs.
$endgroup$
– Mefitico
14 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
I hope someone performs GMRES by hand on this system and reports the steps.
$endgroup$
– Rahul
10 hours ago





$begingroup$
I hope someone performs GMRES by hand on this system and reports the steps.
$endgroup$
– Rahul
10 hours ago





2




2




$begingroup$
Since linear systems are so well studied, there are many approaches (that are essentially equivalent - but maybe not the iterative solution). As such, does this question essentially boil down to a list of answers, which is not technically on topic for this site?
$endgroup$
– Teepeemm
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Since linear systems are so well studied, there are many approaches (that are essentially equivalent - but maybe not the iterative solution). As such, does this question essentially boil down to a list of answers, which is not technically on topic for this site?
$endgroup$
– Teepeemm
3 hours ago










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















13












$begingroup$

Is this method allowed ?



$$beginpmatrix3&2&36\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1& 2/3&12\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&2/3&12\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&1&6 endpmatrix$$



Which yields $x=8$ and $y=6$




The first step is $R_1 to R_1 times frac13$



The second step is $R_2 to R_2 - 5R_1$



The third step is $R_1 to R_1 -R_2$



The fourth step is $R_2 to R_2times frac32$



Here $R_i$ denotes the $i$ -th row.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I have never seen that! What is it? :D
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    21 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    elementary operations!
    $endgroup$
    – Chinnapparaj R
    21 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I assume $R$ stands for Row.
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    20 hours ago






  • 16




    $begingroup$
    It's also called Gaussian elimination.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    18 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    12 hours ago


















10












$begingroup$

How about using Cramer's Rule? Define $Delta_x=left[beginmatrix36 & 2 \ 64 & 4endmatrixright]$, $Delta_y=left[beginmatrix3 & 36\ 5 & 64endmatrixright]$
and $Delta_0=left[beginmatrix3 & 2\ 5 &4endmatrixright]$.



Now computation is trivial as you have: $x=dfracdetDelta_xdetDelta_0$ and $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    21 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
    $endgroup$
    – Paras Khosla
    20 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    18 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
    $endgroup$
    – mlk
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
    $endgroup$
    – user1717828
    15 hours ago



















8












$begingroup$

By false position:



Assume $x=10,y=3$, which fulfills the first equation, and let $x=10+x',y=3+y'$. Now, after simplification



$$3x'+2y'=0,\5x'+4y'=2.$$



We easily eliminate $y'$ (using $4y'=-6x'$) and get



$$-x'=2.$$



Though this method is not essentially different from, say elimination, it can be useful for by-hand computation as it yields smaller terms.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is a great method. +1 :)
    $endgroup$
    – Paras Khosla
    10 hours ago


















7












$begingroup$

Another method to solve simultaneous equations in two dimensions, is by plotting graphs of the equations on a cartesian plane, and finding the point of intersection.



plot of simultaneous equations






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago



















5












$begingroup$

Any method you can come up with will in the end amount to Cramer's rule, which gives explicit formulas for the solution. Except special cases, the solution of a system is unique, so that you will always be computing the ratio of those determinants.



Anyway, it turns out that by organizing the computation in certain ways, you can reduce the number of arithmetic operations to be performed. For $2times2$ systems,
the different variants make little difference in this respect. Things become more interesting for $ntimes n$ systems.



Direct application of Cramer is by far the worse, as it takes a number of operations proportional to $(n+1)!$, which is huge. Even for $3times3$ systems, it should be avoided. The best method to date is Gaussian elimination (you eliminate one unknown at a time by forming linear combinations of the equations and turn the system to a triangular form). The total workload is proportional to $n^3$ operations.




The steps of standard Gaussian elimination:



$$begincasesax+by=c,\dx+ey=f.endcases$$



Subtract the first times $dfrac da$ from the second,



$$begincasesax+by=c,\0x+left(e-bdfrac daright)y=f-cdfrac da.endcases$$



Solve for $y$,



$$begincasesax+by=c,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



Solve for $x$,



$$begincasesx=dfracc-bdfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac daa,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



So written, the formulas are a little scary, but when you use intermediate variables, the complexity vanishes:



$$d'=frac da,e'=e-bd',f'=f-cd'to y=fracf'e', x=fracc-bya.$$



Anyway, for a $2times2$ system, this is worse than Cramer !



$$begincasesx=dfracce-bfDelta,\y=dfracaf-cdDeltaendcases$$ where $Delta=ae-bd$.




For large systems, say $100times100$ and up, very different methods are used. They work by computing approximate solutions and improving them iteratively until the inaccuracy becomes acceptable. Quite often such systems are sparse (many coefficients are zero), and this is exploited to reduce the number of operations. (The direct methods are inappropriate as they will break the sparseness property.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
    $endgroup$
    – Surb
    7 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$

$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$



From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$, substitute in $(2)$ and you'll get $5(frac36-2y3)+4y=64 implies y=6$ and then you can get that $x=24/3=8$



Another Method
From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$



From $(2)$, $x=frac64-4y5$



But $x=x implies frac36-2y3=frac64-4y5$ do cross multiplication and you'll get $5(36-2y)=3(64-4y) implies y=6$ and substitute to get $x=8$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    19 hours ago



















4












$begingroup$

Fixed Point Iteration



This is not efficient but it's another valid way to solve the system. Treat the system as a matrix equation and rearrange to get $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix$ on the left hand side.



Define
$fbeginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix (36-2y)/3 \ (64-5x)/4endbmatrix$



Start with an intial guess of $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix$



The result is $fbeginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 12\ 16endbmatrix$



Now plug that back into f



The result is $fbeginbmatrix 12\ 6endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 4/3\ 1endbmatrix$



Keep plugging the result back in. After 100 iterations you have:



$beginbmatrix 7.9991\ 5.9993endbmatrix$



Here is a graph of the progression of the iteration:
iteration path






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago



















2












$begingroup$

Other answers have given standard, elementary methods of solving simultaneous equations. Here are a few other ones that can be more long-winded and excessive, but work nonetheless.




Method $1$: (multiplicity of $y$)




Let $y=kx$ for some $kinBbb R$. Then $$3x+2y=36implies x(2k+3)=36implies x=frac362k+3\5x+4y=64implies x(4k+5)=64implies x=frac644k+5$$ so $$36(4k+5)=64(2k+3)implies (144-128)k=(192-180)implies k=frac34.$$ Now $$x=frac644k+5=frac644cdotfrac34+5=8implies y=kx=frac34cdot8=6.quadsquare$$





Method $2$: (use this if you really like quadratic equations :P)




How about we try squaring the equations? We get $$3x+2y=36implies 9x^2+12xy+4y^2=1296\5x+4y=64implies 25x^2+40xy+16y^2=4096$$ Multiplying the first equation by $10$ and the second by $3$ yields $$90x^2+120xy+40y^2=12960\75x^2+120xy+48y^2=12288$$ and subtracting gives us $$15x^2-8y^2=672$$ which is a hyperbola. Notice that subtracting the two linear equations gives you $2x+2y=28implies y=14-x$ so you have the nice quadratic $$15x^2-8(14-x)^2=672.$$ Enjoy!







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    18 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
    $endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    18 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
    $endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago


















0












$begingroup$

It is clear that:




  • $x=10$, $y=3$ is an integer solution of $(1)$.


  • $x=12$, $y=1$ is an integer solution of $(2)$.

Then, from the theory of Linear Diophantine equations:



  • Any integer solution of $(1)$ has the form $x_1=10+2t$, $y_1=3-3t$ with $t$ integer.

  • Any integer solution of $(2)$ has the form $x_2=12+4t$, $y_2=1-5t$ with $t$ integer.

Then, the system has an integer solution $(x_0,y_0)$ if and only if there exists an integer $t$ such that



$$10+2t=x_0=12+4tqquadtextandqquad 3-3t=y_0=1-5t.$$



Solving for $t$ we see that there exists an integer $t$ satisfying both equations, which is $t=-1$. Thus the system has the integer solution
$$x_0=12+4(-1)=8,; y_0=1-5(-1)=6.$$



Note that we can pick any pair of integer solutions to start with. And the method will give the solution provided that the solution is integer, which is often not the case.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3180580%2fare-there-any-other-methods-to-apply-to-solving-simultaneous-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    9 Answers
    9






    active

    oldest

    votes








    9 Answers
    9






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    13












    $begingroup$

    Is this method allowed ?



    $$beginpmatrix3&2&36\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1& 2/3&12\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&2/3&12\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&1&6 endpmatrix$$



    Which yields $x=8$ and $y=6$




    The first step is $R_1 to R_1 times frac13$



    The second step is $R_2 to R_2 - 5R_1$



    The third step is $R_1 to R_1 -R_2$



    The fourth step is $R_2 to R_2times frac32$



    Here $R_i$ denotes the $i$ -th row.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      I have never seen that! What is it? :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      elementary operations!
      $endgroup$
      – Chinnapparaj R
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I assume $R$ stands for Row.
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      20 hours ago






    • 16




      $begingroup$
      It's also called Gaussian elimination.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Towers
      12 hours ago















    13












    $begingroup$

    Is this method allowed ?



    $$beginpmatrix3&2&36\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1& 2/3&12\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&2/3&12\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&1&6 endpmatrix$$



    Which yields $x=8$ and $y=6$




    The first step is $R_1 to R_1 times frac13$



    The second step is $R_2 to R_2 - 5R_1$



    The third step is $R_1 to R_1 -R_2$



    The fourth step is $R_2 to R_2times frac32$



    Here $R_i$ denotes the $i$ -th row.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      I have never seen that! What is it? :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      elementary operations!
      $endgroup$
      – Chinnapparaj R
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I assume $R$ stands for Row.
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      20 hours ago






    • 16




      $begingroup$
      It's also called Gaussian elimination.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Towers
      12 hours ago













    13












    13








    13





    $begingroup$

    Is this method allowed ?



    $$beginpmatrix3&2&36\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1& 2/3&12\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&2/3&12\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&1&6 endpmatrix$$



    Which yields $x=8$ and $y=6$




    The first step is $R_1 to R_1 times frac13$



    The second step is $R_2 to R_2 - 5R_1$



    The third step is $R_1 to R_1 -R_2$



    The fourth step is $R_2 to R_2times frac32$



    Here $R_i$ denotes the $i$ -th row.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Is this method allowed ?



    $$beginpmatrix3&2&36\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1& 2/3&12\5&4&64 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&2/3&12\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&2/3&4 endpmatrix sim beginpmatrix1&0&8\0&1&6 endpmatrix$$



    Which yields $x=8$ and $y=6$




    The first step is $R_1 to R_1 times frac13$



    The second step is $R_2 to R_2 - 5R_1$



    The third step is $R_1 to R_1 -R_2$



    The fourth step is $R_2 to R_2times frac32$



    Here $R_i$ denotes the $i$ -th row.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 20 hours ago

























    answered 21 hours ago









    Chinnapparaj RChinnapparaj R

    6,1712929




    6,1712929











    • $begingroup$
      I have never seen that! What is it? :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      elementary operations!
      $endgroup$
      – Chinnapparaj R
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I assume $R$ stands for Row.
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      20 hours ago






    • 16




      $begingroup$
      It's also called Gaussian elimination.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Towers
      12 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      I have never seen that! What is it? :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      elementary operations!
      $endgroup$
      – Chinnapparaj R
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I assume $R$ stands for Row.
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      20 hours ago






    • 16




      $begingroup$
      It's also called Gaussian elimination.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Towers
      12 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    I have never seen that! What is it? :D
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    21 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I have never seen that! What is it? :D
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    21 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    elementary operations!
    $endgroup$
    – Chinnapparaj R
    21 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    elementary operations!
    $endgroup$
    – Chinnapparaj R
    21 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    I assume $R$ stands for Row.
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    20 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I assume $R$ stands for Row.
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    20 hours ago




    16




    16




    $begingroup$
    It's also called Gaussian elimination.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    It's also called Gaussian elimination.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    18 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    12 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    See also augmented matrix and, for typesetting, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2233/… .
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    12 hours ago











    10












    $begingroup$

    How about using Cramer's Rule? Define $Delta_x=left[beginmatrix36 & 2 \ 64 & 4endmatrixright]$, $Delta_y=left[beginmatrix3 & 36\ 5 & 64endmatrixright]$
    and $Delta_0=left[beginmatrix3 & 2\ 5 &4endmatrixright]$.



    Now computation is trivial as you have: $x=dfracdetDelta_xdetDelta_0$ and $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      20 hours ago






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
      $endgroup$
      – mlk
      17 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
      $endgroup$
      – user1717828
      15 hours ago
















    10












    $begingroup$

    How about using Cramer's Rule? Define $Delta_x=left[beginmatrix36 & 2 \ 64 & 4endmatrixright]$, $Delta_y=left[beginmatrix3 & 36\ 5 & 64endmatrixright]$
    and $Delta_0=left[beginmatrix3 & 2\ 5 &4endmatrixright]$.



    Now computation is trivial as you have: $x=dfracdetDelta_xdetDelta_0$ and $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      20 hours ago






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
      $endgroup$
      – mlk
      17 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
      $endgroup$
      – user1717828
      15 hours ago














    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

    How about using Cramer's Rule? Define $Delta_x=left[beginmatrix36 & 2 \ 64 & 4endmatrixright]$, $Delta_y=left[beginmatrix3 & 36\ 5 & 64endmatrixright]$
    and $Delta_0=left[beginmatrix3 & 2\ 5 &4endmatrixright]$.



    Now computation is trivial as you have: $x=dfracdetDelta_xdetDelta_0$ and $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    How about using Cramer's Rule? Define $Delta_x=left[beginmatrix36 & 2 \ 64 & 4endmatrixright]$, $Delta_y=left[beginmatrix3 & 36\ 5 & 64endmatrixright]$
    and $Delta_0=left[beginmatrix3 & 2\ 5 &4endmatrixright]$.



    Now computation is trivial as you have: $x=dfracdetDelta_xdetDelta_0$ and $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 21 hours ago









    Paras KhoslaParas Khosla

    3,061625




    3,061625







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      20 hours ago






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
      $endgroup$
      – mlk
      17 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
      $endgroup$
      – user1717828
      15 hours ago













    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      21 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      20 hours ago






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      18 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
      $endgroup$
      – mlk
      17 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
      $endgroup$
      – user1717828
      15 hours ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    21 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Wow! Very useful! I have never heard of this method, before! $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    21 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
    $endgroup$
    – Paras Khosla
    20 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    You must've made a calculation mistake. Recheck your calculations. It does indeed give $(2, 1)$ as the answer. Cheers :)
    $endgroup$
    – Paras Khosla
    20 hours ago




    8




    8




    $begingroup$
    Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Cramer's rule is important theoretically, but it is a very inefficient way to solve equations numerically, except for two equations in two unknowns. For $n$ equations, Cramer's rule requires $n!$ arithmetic operations to evaluate the determinants, compared with about $n^3$ operations to solve using Gaussian elimination. Even when $n = 10$, $n^3 = 1000$ but $n! = 3628800$. And in many real world applied math computations, $n = 100,000$ is a "small problem!"
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    18 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
    $endgroup$
    – mlk
    17 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero Just to be technical, there are faster ways to calculate the determinant of large matrices. However the one method I know to do it in n^3 relies on Gaussian elimination itself, which makes it a bit redundant...
    $endgroup$
    – mlk
    17 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
    $endgroup$
    – user1717828
    15 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @user477343 asked for different ways to solve, not more efficient ways to solve. This is awesome.
    $endgroup$
    – user1717828
    15 hours ago












    8












    $begingroup$

    By false position:



    Assume $x=10,y=3$, which fulfills the first equation, and let $x=10+x',y=3+y'$. Now, after simplification



    $$3x'+2y'=0,\5x'+4y'=2.$$



    We easily eliminate $y'$ (using $4y'=-6x'$) and get



    $$-x'=2.$$



    Though this method is not essentially different from, say elimination, it can be useful for by-hand computation as it yields smaller terms.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is a great method. +1 :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      10 hours ago















    8












    $begingroup$

    By false position:



    Assume $x=10,y=3$, which fulfills the first equation, and let $x=10+x',y=3+y'$. Now, after simplification



    $$3x'+2y'=0,\5x'+4y'=2.$$



    We easily eliminate $y'$ (using $4y'=-6x'$) and get



    $$-x'=2.$$



    Though this method is not essentially different from, say elimination, it can be useful for by-hand computation as it yields smaller terms.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is a great method. +1 :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      10 hours ago













    8












    8








    8





    $begingroup$

    By false position:



    Assume $x=10,y=3$, which fulfills the first equation, and let $x=10+x',y=3+y'$. Now, after simplification



    $$3x'+2y'=0,\5x'+4y'=2.$$



    We easily eliminate $y'$ (using $4y'=-6x'$) and get



    $$-x'=2.$$



    Though this method is not essentially different from, say elimination, it can be useful for by-hand computation as it yields smaller terms.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    By false position:



    Assume $x=10,y=3$, which fulfills the first equation, and let $x=10+x',y=3+y'$. Now, after simplification



    $$3x'+2y'=0,\5x'+4y'=2.$$



    We easily eliminate $y'$ (using $4y'=-6x'$) and get



    $$-x'=2.$$



    Though this method is not essentially different from, say elimination, it can be useful for by-hand computation as it yields smaller terms.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 20 hours ago









    Yves DaoustYves Daoust

    132k676230




    132k676230







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is a great method. +1 :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      10 hours ago












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is a great method. +1 :)
      $endgroup$
      – Paras Khosla
      10 hours ago







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    This is a great method. +1 :)
    $endgroup$
    – Paras Khosla
    10 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    This is a great method. +1 :)
    $endgroup$
    – Paras Khosla
    10 hours ago











    7












    $begingroup$

    Another method to solve simultaneous equations in two dimensions, is by plotting graphs of the equations on a cartesian plane, and finding the point of intersection.



    plot of simultaneous equations






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago
















    7












    $begingroup$

    Another method to solve simultaneous equations in two dimensions, is by plotting graphs of the equations on a cartesian plane, and finding the point of intersection.



    plot of simultaneous equations






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago














    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$

    Another method to solve simultaneous equations in two dimensions, is by plotting graphs of the equations on a cartesian plane, and finding the point of intersection.



    plot of simultaneous equations






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Another method to solve simultaneous equations in two dimensions, is by plotting graphs of the equations on a cartesian plane, and finding the point of intersection.



    plot of simultaneous equations







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 17 hours ago









    Elements in SpaceElements in Space

    1,25211227




    1,25211227











    • $begingroup$
      That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago

















    • $begingroup$
      That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    That's what my school textbook wants me to do, but it can sometimes be a bit... tiring... but methinks graphing does reveal the essence of simultaneous equations. $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago












    5












    $begingroup$

    Any method you can come up with will in the end amount to Cramer's rule, which gives explicit formulas for the solution. Except special cases, the solution of a system is unique, so that you will always be computing the ratio of those determinants.



    Anyway, it turns out that by organizing the computation in certain ways, you can reduce the number of arithmetic operations to be performed. For $2times2$ systems,
    the different variants make little difference in this respect. Things become more interesting for $ntimes n$ systems.



    Direct application of Cramer is by far the worse, as it takes a number of operations proportional to $(n+1)!$, which is huge. Even for $3times3$ systems, it should be avoided. The best method to date is Gaussian elimination (you eliminate one unknown at a time by forming linear combinations of the equations and turn the system to a triangular form). The total workload is proportional to $n^3$ operations.




    The steps of standard Gaussian elimination:



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\dx+ey=f.endcases$$



    Subtract the first times $dfrac da$ from the second,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\0x+left(e-bdfrac daright)y=f-cdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $y$,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $x$,



    $$begincasesx=dfracc-bdfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac daa,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    So written, the formulas are a little scary, but when you use intermediate variables, the complexity vanishes:



    $$d'=frac da,e'=e-bd',f'=f-cd'to y=fracf'e', x=fracc-bya.$$



    Anyway, for a $2times2$ system, this is worse than Cramer !



    $$begincasesx=dfracce-bfDelta,\y=dfracaf-cdDeltaendcases$$ where $Delta=ae-bd$.




    For large systems, say $100times100$ and up, very different methods are used. They work by computing approximate solutions and improving them iteratively until the inaccuracy becomes acceptable. Quite often such systems are sparse (many coefficients are zero), and this is exploited to reduce the number of operations. (The direct methods are inappropriate as they will break the sparseness property.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
      $endgroup$
      – Surb
      7 hours ago















    5












    $begingroup$

    Any method you can come up with will in the end amount to Cramer's rule, which gives explicit formulas for the solution. Except special cases, the solution of a system is unique, so that you will always be computing the ratio of those determinants.



    Anyway, it turns out that by organizing the computation in certain ways, you can reduce the number of arithmetic operations to be performed. For $2times2$ systems,
    the different variants make little difference in this respect. Things become more interesting for $ntimes n$ systems.



    Direct application of Cramer is by far the worse, as it takes a number of operations proportional to $(n+1)!$, which is huge. Even for $3times3$ systems, it should be avoided. The best method to date is Gaussian elimination (you eliminate one unknown at a time by forming linear combinations of the equations and turn the system to a triangular form). The total workload is proportional to $n^3$ operations.




    The steps of standard Gaussian elimination:



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\dx+ey=f.endcases$$



    Subtract the first times $dfrac da$ from the second,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\0x+left(e-bdfrac daright)y=f-cdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $y$,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $x$,



    $$begincasesx=dfracc-bdfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac daa,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    So written, the formulas are a little scary, but when you use intermediate variables, the complexity vanishes:



    $$d'=frac da,e'=e-bd',f'=f-cd'to y=fracf'e', x=fracc-bya.$$



    Anyway, for a $2times2$ system, this is worse than Cramer !



    $$begincasesx=dfracce-bfDelta,\y=dfracaf-cdDeltaendcases$$ where $Delta=ae-bd$.




    For large systems, say $100times100$ and up, very different methods are used. They work by computing approximate solutions and improving them iteratively until the inaccuracy becomes acceptable. Quite often such systems are sparse (many coefficients are zero), and this is exploited to reduce the number of operations. (The direct methods are inappropriate as they will break the sparseness property.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
      $endgroup$
      – Surb
      7 hours ago













    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Any method you can come up with will in the end amount to Cramer's rule, which gives explicit formulas for the solution. Except special cases, the solution of a system is unique, so that you will always be computing the ratio of those determinants.



    Anyway, it turns out that by organizing the computation in certain ways, you can reduce the number of arithmetic operations to be performed. For $2times2$ systems,
    the different variants make little difference in this respect. Things become more interesting for $ntimes n$ systems.



    Direct application of Cramer is by far the worse, as it takes a number of operations proportional to $(n+1)!$, which is huge. Even for $3times3$ systems, it should be avoided. The best method to date is Gaussian elimination (you eliminate one unknown at a time by forming linear combinations of the equations and turn the system to a triangular form). The total workload is proportional to $n^3$ operations.




    The steps of standard Gaussian elimination:



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\dx+ey=f.endcases$$



    Subtract the first times $dfrac da$ from the second,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\0x+left(e-bdfrac daright)y=f-cdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $y$,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $x$,



    $$begincasesx=dfracc-bdfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac daa,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    So written, the formulas are a little scary, but when you use intermediate variables, the complexity vanishes:



    $$d'=frac da,e'=e-bd',f'=f-cd'to y=fracf'e', x=fracc-bya.$$



    Anyway, for a $2times2$ system, this is worse than Cramer !



    $$begincasesx=dfracce-bfDelta,\y=dfracaf-cdDeltaendcases$$ where $Delta=ae-bd$.




    For large systems, say $100times100$ and up, very different methods are used. They work by computing approximate solutions and improving them iteratively until the inaccuracy becomes acceptable. Quite often such systems are sparse (many coefficients are zero), and this is exploited to reduce the number of operations. (The direct methods are inappropriate as they will break the sparseness property.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Any method you can come up with will in the end amount to Cramer's rule, which gives explicit formulas for the solution. Except special cases, the solution of a system is unique, so that you will always be computing the ratio of those determinants.



    Anyway, it turns out that by organizing the computation in certain ways, you can reduce the number of arithmetic operations to be performed. For $2times2$ systems,
    the different variants make little difference in this respect. Things become more interesting for $ntimes n$ systems.



    Direct application of Cramer is by far the worse, as it takes a number of operations proportional to $(n+1)!$, which is huge. Even for $3times3$ systems, it should be avoided. The best method to date is Gaussian elimination (you eliminate one unknown at a time by forming linear combinations of the equations and turn the system to a triangular form). The total workload is proportional to $n^3$ operations.




    The steps of standard Gaussian elimination:



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\dx+ey=f.endcases$$



    Subtract the first times $dfrac da$ from the second,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\0x+left(e-bdfrac daright)y=f-cdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $y$,



    $$begincasesax+by=c,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    Solve for $x$,



    $$begincasesx=dfracc-bdfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac daa,\y=dfracf-cdfrac dae-bdfrac da.endcases$$



    So written, the formulas are a little scary, but when you use intermediate variables, the complexity vanishes:



    $$d'=frac da,e'=e-bd',f'=f-cd'to y=fracf'e', x=fracc-bya.$$



    Anyway, for a $2times2$ system, this is worse than Cramer !



    $$begincasesx=dfracce-bfDelta,\y=dfracaf-cdDeltaendcases$$ where $Delta=ae-bd$.




    For large systems, say $100times100$ and up, very different methods are used. They work by computing approximate solutions and improving them iteratively until the inaccuracy becomes acceptable. Quite often such systems are sparse (many coefficients are zero), and this is exploited to reduce the number of operations. (The direct methods are inappropriate as they will break the sparseness property.)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 19 hours ago

























    answered 19 hours ago









    Yves DaoustYves Daoust

    132k676230




    132k676230







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
      $endgroup$
      – Surb
      7 hours ago












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
      $endgroup$
      – Surb
      7 hours ago







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
    $endgroup$
    – Surb
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    +1 for the last paragraph which is, I think, of utmost importance. Indeed, our computers solve many, many, linear systems each day (and quite huge ones, not 100x100 but more 100'000 x 100'000). None of them are solved by any the methods discussed in the answers so far.
    $endgroup$
    – Surb
    7 hours ago











    5












    $begingroup$

    $$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$



    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$, substitute in $(2)$ and you'll get $5(frac36-2y3)+4y=64 implies y=6$ and then you can get that $x=24/3=8$



    Another Method
    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$



    From $(2)$, $x=frac64-4y5$



    But $x=x implies frac36-2y3=frac64-4y5$ do cross multiplication and you'll get $5(36-2y)=3(64-4y) implies y=6$ and substitute to get $x=8$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      19 hours ago
















    5












    $begingroup$

    $$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$



    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$, substitute in $(2)$ and you'll get $5(frac36-2y3)+4y=64 implies y=6$ and then you can get that $x=24/3=8$



    Another Method
    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$



    From $(2)$, $x=frac64-4y5$



    But $x=x implies frac36-2y3=frac64-4y5$ do cross multiplication and you'll get $5(36-2y)=3(64-4y) implies y=6$ and substitute to get $x=8$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      19 hours ago














    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    $$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$



    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$, substitute in $(2)$ and you'll get $5(frac36-2y3)+4y=64 implies y=6$ and then you can get that $x=24/3=8$



    Another Method
    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$



    From $(2)$, $x=frac64-4y5$



    But $x=x implies frac36-2y3=frac64-4y5$ do cross multiplication and you'll get $5(36-2y)=3(64-4y) implies y=6$ and substitute to get $x=8$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    $$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$



    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$, substitute in $(2)$ and you'll get $5(frac36-2y3)+4y=64 implies y=6$ and then you can get that $x=24/3=8$



    Another Method
    From $(1)$, $x=frac36-2y3$



    From $(2)$, $x=frac64-4y5$



    But $x=x implies frac36-2y3=frac64-4y5$ do cross multiplication and you'll get $5(36-2y)=3(64-4y) implies y=6$ and substitute to get $x=8$







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 19 hours ago

























    answered 19 hours ago









    Fareed AFFareed AF

    752112




    752112







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      19 hours ago













    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      19 hours ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    19 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    19 hours ago












    4












    $begingroup$

    Fixed Point Iteration



    This is not efficient but it's another valid way to solve the system. Treat the system as a matrix equation and rearrange to get $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix$ on the left hand side.



    Define
    $fbeginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix (36-2y)/3 \ (64-5x)/4endbmatrix$



    Start with an intial guess of $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix$



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 12\ 16endbmatrix$



    Now plug that back into f



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 12\ 6endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 4/3\ 1endbmatrix$



    Keep plugging the result back in. After 100 iterations you have:



    $beginbmatrix 7.9991\ 5.9993endbmatrix$



    Here is a graph of the progression of the iteration:
    iteration path






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    Fixed Point Iteration



    This is not efficient but it's another valid way to solve the system. Treat the system as a matrix equation and rearrange to get $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix$ on the left hand side.



    Define
    $fbeginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix (36-2y)/3 \ (64-5x)/4endbmatrix$



    Start with an intial guess of $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix$



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 12\ 16endbmatrix$



    Now plug that back into f



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 12\ 6endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 4/3\ 1endbmatrix$



    Keep plugging the result back in. After 100 iterations you have:



    $beginbmatrix 7.9991\ 5.9993endbmatrix$



    Here is a graph of the progression of the iteration:
    iteration path






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Fixed Point Iteration



    This is not efficient but it's another valid way to solve the system. Treat the system as a matrix equation and rearrange to get $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix$ on the left hand side.



    Define
    $fbeginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix (36-2y)/3 \ (64-5x)/4endbmatrix$



    Start with an intial guess of $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix$



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 12\ 16endbmatrix$



    Now plug that back into f



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 12\ 6endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 4/3\ 1endbmatrix$



    Keep plugging the result back in. After 100 iterations you have:



    $beginbmatrix 7.9991\ 5.9993endbmatrix$



    Here is a graph of the progression of the iteration:
    iteration path






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Fixed Point Iteration



    This is not efficient but it's another valid way to solve the system. Treat the system as a matrix equation and rearrange to get $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix$ on the left hand side.



    Define
    $fbeginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix (36-2y)/3 \ (64-5x)/4endbmatrix$



    Start with an intial guess of $beginbmatrix x\ yendbmatrix=beginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix$



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 0\ 0endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 12\ 16endbmatrix$



    Now plug that back into f



    The result is $fbeginbmatrix 12\ 6endbmatrix=beginbmatrix 4/3\ 1endbmatrix$



    Keep plugging the result back in. After 100 iterations you have:



    $beginbmatrix 7.9991\ 5.9993endbmatrix$



    Here is a graph of the progression of the iteration:
    iteration path







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 8 hours ago









    Kelly LowderKelly Lowder

    1555




    1555











    • $begingroup$
      So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago

















    • $begingroup$
      So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    So we just have $fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$ and then $fbigg(fbeginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrixbigg)$ and by letting $f^k(cdot ) = f(f(ldots f(f(cdot))ldots )$ $k$ times, this overall goes to $$f^100beginbmatrix 0 \ 0endbmatrix$$ and etc... hmm... it actually seems quite appealing to me, regardless of its low efficiency, as you say :P
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago












    2












    $begingroup$

    Other answers have given standard, elementary methods of solving simultaneous equations. Here are a few other ones that can be more long-winded and excessive, but work nonetheless.




    Method $1$: (multiplicity of $y$)




    Let $y=kx$ for some $kinBbb R$. Then $$3x+2y=36implies x(2k+3)=36implies x=frac362k+3\5x+4y=64implies x(4k+5)=64implies x=frac644k+5$$ so $$36(4k+5)=64(2k+3)implies (144-128)k=(192-180)implies k=frac34.$$ Now $$x=frac644k+5=frac644cdotfrac34+5=8implies y=kx=frac34cdot8=6.quadsquare$$





    Method $2$: (use this if you really like quadratic equations :P)




    How about we try squaring the equations? We get $$3x+2y=36implies 9x^2+12xy+4y^2=1296\5x+4y=64implies 25x^2+40xy+16y^2=4096$$ Multiplying the first equation by $10$ and the second by $3$ yields $$90x^2+120xy+40y^2=12960\75x^2+120xy+48y^2=12288$$ and subtracting gives us $$15x^2-8y^2=672$$ which is a hyperbola. Notice that subtracting the two linear equations gives you $2x+2y=28implies y=14-x$ so you have the nice quadratic $$15x^2-8(14-x)^2=672.$$ Enjoy!







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago















    2












    $begingroup$

    Other answers have given standard, elementary methods of solving simultaneous equations. Here are a few other ones that can be more long-winded and excessive, but work nonetheless.




    Method $1$: (multiplicity of $y$)




    Let $y=kx$ for some $kinBbb R$. Then $$3x+2y=36implies x(2k+3)=36implies x=frac362k+3\5x+4y=64implies x(4k+5)=64implies x=frac644k+5$$ so $$36(4k+5)=64(2k+3)implies (144-128)k=(192-180)implies k=frac34.$$ Now $$x=frac644k+5=frac644cdotfrac34+5=8implies y=kx=frac34cdot8=6.quadsquare$$





    Method $2$: (use this if you really like quadratic equations :P)




    How about we try squaring the equations? We get $$3x+2y=36implies 9x^2+12xy+4y^2=1296\5x+4y=64implies 25x^2+40xy+16y^2=4096$$ Multiplying the first equation by $10$ and the second by $3$ yields $$90x^2+120xy+40y^2=12960\75x^2+120xy+48y^2=12288$$ and subtracting gives us $$15x^2-8y^2=672$$ which is a hyperbola. Notice that subtracting the two linear equations gives you $2x+2y=28implies y=14-x$ so you have the nice quadratic $$15x^2-8(14-x)^2=672.$$ Enjoy!







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago













    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    Other answers have given standard, elementary methods of solving simultaneous equations. Here are a few other ones that can be more long-winded and excessive, but work nonetheless.




    Method $1$: (multiplicity of $y$)




    Let $y=kx$ for some $kinBbb R$. Then $$3x+2y=36implies x(2k+3)=36implies x=frac362k+3\5x+4y=64implies x(4k+5)=64implies x=frac644k+5$$ so $$36(4k+5)=64(2k+3)implies (144-128)k=(192-180)implies k=frac34.$$ Now $$x=frac644k+5=frac644cdotfrac34+5=8implies y=kx=frac34cdot8=6.quadsquare$$





    Method $2$: (use this if you really like quadratic equations :P)




    How about we try squaring the equations? We get $$3x+2y=36implies 9x^2+12xy+4y^2=1296\5x+4y=64implies 25x^2+40xy+16y^2=4096$$ Multiplying the first equation by $10$ and the second by $3$ yields $$90x^2+120xy+40y^2=12960\75x^2+120xy+48y^2=12288$$ and subtracting gives us $$15x^2-8y^2=672$$ which is a hyperbola. Notice that subtracting the two linear equations gives you $2x+2y=28implies y=14-x$ so you have the nice quadratic $$15x^2-8(14-x)^2=672.$$ Enjoy!







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Other answers have given standard, elementary methods of solving simultaneous equations. Here are a few other ones that can be more long-winded and excessive, but work nonetheless.




    Method $1$: (multiplicity of $y$)




    Let $y=kx$ for some $kinBbb R$. Then $$3x+2y=36implies x(2k+3)=36implies x=frac362k+3\5x+4y=64implies x(4k+5)=64implies x=frac644k+5$$ so $$36(4k+5)=64(2k+3)implies (144-128)k=(192-180)implies k=frac34.$$ Now $$x=frac644k+5=frac644cdotfrac34+5=8implies y=kx=frac34cdot8=6.quadsquare$$





    Method $2$: (use this if you really like quadratic equations :P)




    How about we try squaring the equations? We get $$3x+2y=36implies 9x^2+12xy+4y^2=1296\5x+4y=64implies 25x^2+40xy+16y^2=4096$$ Multiplying the first equation by $10$ and the second by $3$ yields $$90x^2+120xy+40y^2=12960\75x^2+120xy+48y^2=12288$$ and subtracting gives us $$15x^2-8y^2=672$$ which is a hyperbola. Notice that subtracting the two linear equations gives you $2x+2y=28implies y=14-x$ so you have the nice quadratic $$15x^2-8(14-x)^2=672.$$ Enjoy!








    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 18 hours ago

























    answered 18 hours ago









    TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire

    13.1k62464




    13.1k62464











    • $begingroup$
      In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      18 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
      $endgroup$
      – TheSimpliFire
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – user477343
      2 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    18 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    In your first method, why do you substitute $k=frac34$ in the second equation $5x+4y=64$ as opposed to the first equation $3x+2y=36$? Also, hello! :D
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    18 hours ago





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
    $endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Because for $3x+2y=36$, we get $2k$ in the denominator, but $2k=3/2$ leaves us with a fraction. If we use the other equation, we get $4k=3$ which is neater.
    $endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    18 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    So, it doesn't really matter which one we substitute it in; but it is good to have some intuition when deciding! Thanks for your answer :P $(+1)$
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    18 hours ago





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
    $endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    No, at an intersection point between two lines, most of their properties at that point are the same (apart from gradient, of course)
    $endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Ok. Thank you for clarifying!
    $endgroup$
    – user477343
    2 hours ago











    0












    $begingroup$

    It is clear that:




    • $x=10$, $y=3$ is an integer solution of $(1)$.


    • $x=12$, $y=1$ is an integer solution of $(2)$.

    Then, from the theory of Linear Diophantine equations:



    • Any integer solution of $(1)$ has the form $x_1=10+2t$, $y_1=3-3t$ with $t$ integer.

    • Any integer solution of $(2)$ has the form $x_2=12+4t$, $y_2=1-5t$ with $t$ integer.

    Then, the system has an integer solution $(x_0,y_0)$ if and only if there exists an integer $t$ such that



    $$10+2t=x_0=12+4tqquadtextandqquad 3-3t=y_0=1-5t.$$



    Solving for $t$ we see that there exists an integer $t$ satisfying both equations, which is $t=-1$. Thus the system has the integer solution
    $$x_0=12+4(-1)=8,; y_0=1-5(-1)=6.$$



    Note that we can pick any pair of integer solutions to start with. And the method will give the solution provided that the solution is integer, which is often not the case.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      0












      $begingroup$

      It is clear that:




      • $x=10$, $y=3$ is an integer solution of $(1)$.


      • $x=12$, $y=1$ is an integer solution of $(2)$.

      Then, from the theory of Linear Diophantine equations:



      • Any integer solution of $(1)$ has the form $x_1=10+2t$, $y_1=3-3t$ with $t$ integer.

      • Any integer solution of $(2)$ has the form $x_2=12+4t$, $y_2=1-5t$ with $t$ integer.

      Then, the system has an integer solution $(x_0,y_0)$ if and only if there exists an integer $t$ such that



      $$10+2t=x_0=12+4tqquadtextandqquad 3-3t=y_0=1-5t.$$



      Solving for $t$ we see that there exists an integer $t$ satisfying both equations, which is $t=-1$. Thus the system has the integer solution
      $$x_0=12+4(-1)=8,; y_0=1-5(-1)=6.$$



      Note that we can pick any pair of integer solutions to start with. And the method will give the solution provided that the solution is integer, which is often not the case.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        It is clear that:




        • $x=10$, $y=3$ is an integer solution of $(1)$.


        • $x=12$, $y=1$ is an integer solution of $(2)$.

        Then, from the theory of Linear Diophantine equations:



        • Any integer solution of $(1)$ has the form $x_1=10+2t$, $y_1=3-3t$ with $t$ integer.

        • Any integer solution of $(2)$ has the form $x_2=12+4t$, $y_2=1-5t$ with $t$ integer.

        Then, the system has an integer solution $(x_0,y_0)$ if and only if there exists an integer $t$ such that



        $$10+2t=x_0=12+4tqquadtextandqquad 3-3t=y_0=1-5t.$$



        Solving for $t$ we see that there exists an integer $t$ satisfying both equations, which is $t=-1$. Thus the system has the integer solution
        $$x_0=12+4(-1)=8,; y_0=1-5(-1)=6.$$



        Note that we can pick any pair of integer solutions to start with. And the method will give the solution provided that the solution is integer, which is often not the case.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        It is clear that:




        • $x=10$, $y=3$ is an integer solution of $(1)$.


        • $x=12$, $y=1$ is an integer solution of $(2)$.

        Then, from the theory of Linear Diophantine equations:



        • Any integer solution of $(1)$ has the form $x_1=10+2t$, $y_1=3-3t$ with $t$ integer.

        • Any integer solution of $(2)$ has the form $x_2=12+4t$, $y_2=1-5t$ with $t$ integer.

        Then, the system has an integer solution $(x_0,y_0)$ if and only if there exists an integer $t$ such that



        $$10+2t=x_0=12+4tqquadtextandqquad 3-3t=y_0=1-5t.$$



        Solving for $t$ we see that there exists an integer $t$ satisfying both equations, which is $t=-1$. Thus the system has the integer solution
        $$x_0=12+4(-1)=8,; y_0=1-5(-1)=6.$$



        Note that we can pick any pair of integer solutions to start with. And the method will give the solution provided that the solution is integer, which is often not the case.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        PedroPedro

        10.9k23475




        10.9k23475



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3180580%2fare-there-any-other-methods-to-apply-to-solving-simultaneous-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Reverse int within the 32-bit signed integer range: [−2^31, 2^31 − 1]Combining two 32-bit integers into one 64-bit integerDetermine if an int is within rangeLossy packing 32 bit integer to 16 bitComputing the square root of a 64-bit integerKeeping integer addition within boundsSafe multiplication of two 64-bit signed integersLeetcode 10: Regular Expression MatchingSigned integer-to-ascii x86_64 assembler macroReverse the digits of an Integer“Add two numbers given in reverse order from a linked list”

            Category:Fedor von Bock Media in category "Fedor von Bock"Navigation menuUpload mediaISNI: 0000 0000 5511 3417VIAF ID: 24712551GND ID: 119294796Library of Congress authority ID: n96068363BnF ID: 12534305fSUDOC authorities ID: 034604189Open Library ID: OL338253ANKCR AUT ID: jn19990000869National Library of Israel ID: 000514068National Thesaurus for Author Names ID: 341574317ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Kiel Indholdsfortegnelse Historie | Transport og færgeforbindelser | Sejlsport og anden sport | Kultur | Kendte personer fra Kiel | Noter | Litteratur | Eksterne henvisninger | Navigationsmenuwww.kiel.de54°19′31″N 10°8′26″Ø / 54.32528°N 10.14056°Ø / 54.32528; 10.14056Oberbürgermeister Dr. Ulf Kämpferwww.statistik-nord.deDen danske Stats StatistikKiels hjemmesiderrrWorldCat312794080n790547494030481-4