I like to use row-echeleon form! The idea is always to find inverse first, either through reduced or not reduced form in this method. I prefer this method to cramer’s and co-factor’s in solving equations!
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
Won't that be Kramer with a K?
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
chapter 2 is very natkhat.
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
Cramer's rule is smthing I don't remember: I have never crammed in my life!
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
Won't that be Kramer with a K?
OP was correct. It is Cramer's rule with a C. I googled it. And also found you were referring to Kramers Kronig equation.
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
Cramer's rule is smthing I don't remember: I have never crammed in my life!
If u don't remember the rule, why the preference.for row echelon method OVER Cramer's rule?
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
I think they both solve equations of form AX=B by first finding inverse of A matrix in AX=B and then multiplying in (A inverse) B.
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
I thought only one of them does that. The other reduces all elements to 0 except the diagonal elements. Thus the diagonal elements r easily solved.
I could be wrong.
You should post more in the Business section. Because quants is becoming an Imp strategy for hedge funds. And we know we have to understand Cramer's rule for that.
Re: Cramer vs. Co-factor method
Sorry op. Am bit rusty from learning this year's ago.
Row echelon if I recall reduces the left side to identity matrix thru series of operations. In other words A inverse times A is done. Rhs is soln.
I vaguely recall in Cramer's rule the determinant of a matrix (the one with coefficients? ) is involved. And that for cases when the determinant is zero Cramer rule cannot be applied. Cause it goes in denominator of the solution.
By the way, what do you think of Cramer. Especially when he goes up against Cramer?