|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Numerical Determinants
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg13107] Re: Numerical Determinants
- From: hello at there.com (Rod Pinna)
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 03:44:10 -0400
- Organization: UWA
- References: <6n4o6m$nin@smc.vnet.net> <6n9m67$9hq@smc.vnet.net> <6nnb0k$5em@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
In article <6nnb0k$5em at smc.vnet.net>, Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Rod Pinna wrote:
>Why not? Your problem is clearly a generalized eigenvalue problem. For
>non-zero p you can rewrite A.x=p B.x as B.x=(1/p) A.x. For invertible
>A you then have Inverse[A].B.x = (1/p) x which is the formula that
>you're using.
>
Which probably indicates that I should have listened better in first
year mathematics :)
That was the idea I was following, but since it hadn't been mentioned
as a method in a couple of the texts I consulted, I thought that there
might be something I was missing. Basically, everything talks about
inverting the B matrix, but then doesn't mention what to do in B in
singular. As the above *seemed* obvious, I thought that there might be
a reason it wasn't mentioned.
Thanks for the advice.
Rod.
Rod Pinna
(rpinnaX at XcivilX.uwa.edu.au Remove the X for email)
Prev by Date:
Re: Random[Real]: How good is it? Is it better/worse than Park-Miller, etc?
Next by Date:
Re: Getting a bitmap to display with the proper dimensions
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Re: coordinate transformation
Next by thread:
Re: Numerical Determinants
|