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
$begingroup$
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 $y$?
linear-algebra systems-of-equations
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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 $y$?
linear-algebra systems-of-equations
$endgroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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 $y$?
linear-algebra systems-of-equations
$endgroup$
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
linear-algebra systems-of-equations
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is a great method. +1 :)
$endgroup$
– Paras Khosla
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$
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 $x=8$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
$endgroup$
– user477343
19 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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!
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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 $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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 $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.
$endgroup$
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 $y=dfracdetDelta_ydetDelta_0$.
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is a great method. +1 :)
$endgroup$
– Paras Khosla
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is a great method. +1 :)
$endgroup$
– Paras Khosla
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered 20 hours ago
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
132k676230
1
$begingroup$
This is a great method. +1 :)
$endgroup$
– Paras Khosla
10 hours ago
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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.)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$
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 $x=8$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
$endgroup$
– user477343
19 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$
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 $x=8$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Pure algebra! I personally prefer the second method. Thanks for that! $(+1)$
$endgroup$
– user477343
19 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$
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 $x=8$
$endgroup$
$$beginalign3x+2y&=36 tag1\ 5x+4y&=64tag2endalign$$
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 $x=8$
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$endgroup$
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:
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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!
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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!
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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!
$endgroup$
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!
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
PedroPedro
10.9k23475
10.9k23475
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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