Re: Solve with dot products

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg70733] Re: Solve with dot products
• From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
• Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:39:59 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <ehkch0\$isb\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```Hi,

you must write out your equations explicit because
Mathematica will not know that a, b,c and d
are matrices and not scalars, vectors or higher order
tensors ?

That's why the output of Mathematica
is nonsense because the Dot[] product
has no inverse and Mathematica thinks
that a,b,c,d are scalars.

Regards
Jens

Oliver Friedrich wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I have some difficulties with interpretation of a solution that Solve
> returns.
>
> In[2]:=
> Solve[a.b.c==d,a]
>
> From In[2]:=
> Solve::ifun: Inverse functions are being used by Solve, so some solutions
> may \
> not be found.
>
> Out[2]=
> {{a\[Rule]InverseFunction[Dot,1,3][d,b,c]}}
>
> When I do that equation by hand I get something that I can't put into
> correspondence with the solution above.
>
> * means Inverse of a
> (a.b)*=b*.a*
>
> a.b.c=d    	    	    	|(_)*
>
> c*.b*.a*=d*    	    	|c.
>
> b*.a*=c.d*    	    	|b.
>
> a*=b.c.d*    	    	|(_)*
>
> a=d.c*.b*
>
> b and c are swapped compared to the Mathematica solution.
>
> 1) Where's my error?
> 2) What's the interpretation of such an InverseFunction expression, I
> don't get along the docu.
> 3) What's the z in InverseFunction[x,y,z][args] good for when I could
> count the number of arguments in args?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help
>
>

```

• Prev by Date: Correction: new procedure for converting a new recursive polynomial set into matrices
• Next by Date: Re: How to set AccuracyGoal and PrecisionGoal?
• Previous by thread: Solve with dot products
• Next by thread: Re: Solve with dot products