Solving for unknown 3x3 matrix












3












$begingroup$


Given the following I am trying to solve for $A$:
$$ v_1 = A v_2$$
where $v_1$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix, $A$ is an unknown $3times 3$ matrix and $v_2$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix



Additionally:



$A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$



I am not quite sure how to proceed—is there a way to get a solution for A since all of the given vectors are non square? Any leads would be appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's a problem - the matrix product of a $3times 3$ and a $2times 3$ in that order doesn't exist. Would you prefer to fix that by reversing the order of multiplication, or by making them $3times 2$ matrices instead? (Formatting note: times is the symbol I used there)
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jmerry whoops! Fixed to 3 $times$ 2.
    $endgroup$
    – user5826447
    3 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


Given the following I am trying to solve for $A$:
$$ v_1 = A v_2$$
where $v_1$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix, $A$ is an unknown $3times 3$ matrix and $v_2$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix



Additionally:



$A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$



I am not quite sure how to proceed—is there a way to get a solution for A since all of the given vectors are non square? Any leads would be appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's a problem - the matrix product of a $3times 3$ and a $2times 3$ in that order doesn't exist. Would you prefer to fix that by reversing the order of multiplication, or by making them $3times 2$ matrices instead? (Formatting note: times is the symbol I used there)
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jmerry whoops! Fixed to 3 $times$ 2.
    $endgroup$
    – user5826447
    3 hours ago














3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


Given the following I am trying to solve for $A$:
$$ v_1 = A v_2$$
where $v_1$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix, $A$ is an unknown $3times 3$ matrix and $v_2$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix



Additionally:



$A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$



I am not quite sure how to proceed—is there a way to get a solution for A since all of the given vectors are non square? Any leads would be appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Given the following I am trying to solve for $A$:
$$ v_1 = A v_2$$
where $v_1$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix, $A$ is an unknown $3times 3$ matrix and $v_2$ is a known $3times 2$ matrix



Additionally:



$A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$



I am not quite sure how to proceed—is there a way to get a solution for A since all of the given vectors are non square? Any leads would be appreciated!







linear-algebra matrices matrix-equations






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









El Pasta

49615




49615






New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









user5826447user5826447

163




163




New contributor




user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user5826447 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's a problem - the matrix product of a $3times 3$ and a $2times 3$ in that order doesn't exist. Would you prefer to fix that by reversing the order of multiplication, or by making them $3times 2$ matrices instead? (Formatting note: times is the symbol I used there)
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jmerry whoops! Fixed to 3 $times$ 2.
    $endgroup$
    – user5826447
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's a problem - the matrix product of a $3times 3$ and a $2times 3$ in that order doesn't exist. Would you prefer to fix that by reversing the order of multiplication, or by making them $3times 2$ matrices instead? (Formatting note: times is the symbol I used there)
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jmerry whoops! Fixed to 3 $times$ 2.
    $endgroup$
    – user5826447
    3 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
There's a problem - the matrix product of a $3times 3$ and a $2times 3$ in that order doesn't exist. Would you prefer to fix that by reversing the order of multiplication, or by making them $3times 2$ matrices instead? (Formatting note: times is the symbol I used there)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
There's a problem - the matrix product of a $3times 3$ and a $2times 3$ in that order doesn't exist. Would you prefer to fix that by reversing the order of multiplication, or by making them $3times 2$ matrices instead? (Formatting note: times is the symbol I used there)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@jmerry whoops! Fixed to 3 $times$ 2.
$endgroup$
– user5826447
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@jmerry whoops! Fixed to 3 $times$ 2.
$endgroup$
– user5826447
3 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Basically the best we can do is:
$$A=v_1 v_2^+$$
where $v_2^+$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.



Note that A will have at most rank 2, although we can make it full rank with an arbitrary vector.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    Assuming $v_1$ and $v_2$ both have rank $2$, take any $3 times 1$ vector $x_1$ not in the column space of $v_1$, and any vector $3 times 1$ vector $x_2$ not in the column space of $v_2$; let $w_1$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_1$ and third column is $x_1$, and let $w_2$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_2$ and third column is $x_2$. Then $A = w_1 w_2^{-1}$ satisfies $A w_2 = w_1$ (and thus $A v_2 = v_1$ and $A x_2 = x_1$), $A^{-1} w_1 = w_2$ (and thus $A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$ and $A^{-1} x_1 = x_2$).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      2












      $begingroup$

      Now, the dimensionality says that we should get multiple solutions in general - the problem is finding one. A concept that will get us there? The pseudoinverse. We can't have a full two-sided inverse for the non-square matrix $v_2$, so we find a one-sided inverse $v_2^+$ so that $v_2^+v_2 = I_2$, the $2times 2$ identity. This $v_2^+$, of course, will be a $2times 3$ matrix. Then $A = v_1v_2^+$ will be a solution: $(v_1v_2^+)v_2=v_1(v_2^+v_2) = v_1$.



      How do we construct such a matrix? The reference I linked has a bunch of methods, which probably went way over your head. Also, the standard version there has more properties than we need; we're looking for a solution, not the "best" solution. Don't sweat it if we don't end up with exactly the same thing as in the link. So then, let's go elementary. Switch over to the linear transform viewpoint; we have a linear map $T$ from a vector space $U$ of dimension $n$ to another vector space $W$ of dimension $m$. Choose a basis $w_1,w_2,dots$ for the image of $T$ in $W$. For each $w_i$, choose some $u_iin U$ so that $T(u_i)=w_i$. The $u_i$ are a linearly independent set in $U$. Extend both the $u_i$ and the $w_i$ to bases of their respective spaces $U$ and $W$; usually, we will only have to do this for the larger space.

      Now, we define $T^+$ as follows: for $ile min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)=w_i$. For $i>min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)$ can be anything - we don't care, but we'll make them zero just to standardize. Then, since $(T^+T)w_i = T^+(Tw_i)=T^+u_i=w_i$ for each $ile m$, $T^+T$ is the identity on $W$.



      All right, back to our setup with $3times 2$ matrices. We have $m=2 <3=n$, so we won't have any "extra" vectors to send to zero. There are two length-3 columns of $v_2$, which will be our $w_1$ and $w_2$ (unless they're linearly dependent). What $u_i$ can we use to make $v_2 u_i = w_i$? Well, the standard basis vectors $e_1=begin{pmatrix}1\0end{pmatrix}$ and $e_2=begin{pmatrix}0\1end{pmatrix}$ will do the trick. Then $w_3$ needs to be something linearly independent from $w_1$ and $w_2$ - we make an arbitrary choice here. For something easily constructed, take the cross product.

      Now, to construct a matrix $v_2^+$ with $v_2^+ w_1=e_1$, $v_2^+w_2=e_2$, $v_2^+w_3=e_3$. In matrix form, that's
      $$v_2^+begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}e_1&e_2&0
      end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}$$

      $$v_2^+ = begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}^{-1}$$
      Right-multiplying by that $2times 3$ truncated identity can be summarized simply: throw away the third row.



      All right, what if the columns of $v_2$ are linearly dependent? The construction is still there, but now only $w_1$ is actually in the column space of $v_2$. It still satisfies the official pseudoinverse property $v_2v_2^+v_2=v_2$, but we no longer have $v_2^+v_2=I_2$. As such, we can expect not to get solutions, and we won't unless the column space of $v_1$ is contained in the column space of $v_2$. If it is, the pseudoinverse construction will give one.



      Now, this choice $A=v_1v_2^+$ is not invertible - it has rank $2$. Can we find an invertible matrix that will also be a solution, and give $A^{-1}v_2=v_1$ as well? We'll need to add some $B$ such that $Bv_2=0$ and $A+B$ is invertible. The rows in $B$ must be orthogonal to the columns of $v_2$, so they'll be multiples of that cross product $w_3^T$. In order to make $A'=A+B$ invertible, we need to avoid the rows of $B$ satisfying the same linear combination as the rows of $A$ - just add to the non-pivot row to make this happen. Then $A'$ is a solution, and its inverse works on the other side automatically.






      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
        });


        }
        });






        user5826447 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3082731%2fsolving-for-unknown-3x3-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        2












        $begingroup$

        Basically the best we can do is:
        $$A=v_1 v_2^+$$
        where $v_2^+$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.



        Note that A will have at most rank 2, although we can make it full rank with an arbitrary vector.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Basically the best we can do is:
          $$A=v_1 v_2^+$$
          where $v_2^+$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.



          Note that A will have at most rank 2, although we can make it full rank with an arbitrary vector.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$
















            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            Basically the best we can do is:
            $$A=v_1 v_2^+$$
            where $v_2^+$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.



            Note that A will have at most rank 2, although we can make it full rank with an arbitrary vector.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Basically the best we can do is:
            $$A=v_1 v_2^+$$
            where $v_2^+$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.



            Note that A will have at most rank 2, although we can make it full rank with an arbitrary vector.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago

























            answered 3 hours ago









            I like SerenaI like Serena

            4,0871721




            4,0871721























                2












                $begingroup$

                Assuming $v_1$ and $v_2$ both have rank $2$, take any $3 times 1$ vector $x_1$ not in the column space of $v_1$, and any vector $3 times 1$ vector $x_2$ not in the column space of $v_2$; let $w_1$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_1$ and third column is $x_1$, and let $w_2$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_2$ and third column is $x_2$. Then $A = w_1 w_2^{-1}$ satisfies $A w_2 = w_1$ (and thus $A v_2 = v_1$ and $A x_2 = x_1$), $A^{-1} w_1 = w_2$ (and thus $A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$ and $A^{-1} x_1 = x_2$).






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  Assuming $v_1$ and $v_2$ both have rank $2$, take any $3 times 1$ vector $x_1$ not in the column space of $v_1$, and any vector $3 times 1$ vector $x_2$ not in the column space of $v_2$; let $w_1$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_1$ and third column is $x_1$, and let $w_2$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_2$ and third column is $x_2$. Then $A = w_1 w_2^{-1}$ satisfies $A w_2 = w_1$ (and thus $A v_2 = v_1$ and $A x_2 = x_1$), $A^{-1} w_1 = w_2$ (and thus $A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$ and $A^{-1} x_1 = x_2$).






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    2












                    2








                    2





                    $begingroup$

                    Assuming $v_1$ and $v_2$ both have rank $2$, take any $3 times 1$ vector $x_1$ not in the column space of $v_1$, and any vector $3 times 1$ vector $x_2$ not in the column space of $v_2$; let $w_1$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_1$ and third column is $x_1$, and let $w_2$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_2$ and third column is $x_2$. Then $A = w_1 w_2^{-1}$ satisfies $A w_2 = w_1$ (and thus $A v_2 = v_1$ and $A x_2 = x_1$), $A^{-1} w_1 = w_2$ (and thus $A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$ and $A^{-1} x_1 = x_2$).






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    Assuming $v_1$ and $v_2$ both have rank $2$, take any $3 times 1$ vector $x_1$ not in the column space of $v_1$, and any vector $3 times 1$ vector $x_2$ not in the column space of $v_2$; let $w_1$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_1$ and third column is $x_1$, and let $w_2$ be the $3 times 3$ matrix whose first two columns are $v_2$ and third column is $x_2$. Then $A = w_1 w_2^{-1}$ satisfies $A w_2 = w_1$ (and thus $A v_2 = v_1$ and $A x_2 = x_1$), $A^{-1} w_1 = w_2$ (and thus $A^{-1} v_1 = v_2$ and $A^{-1} x_1 = x_2$).







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 2 hours ago









                    Robert IsraelRobert Israel

                    320k23210462




                    320k23210462























                        2












                        $begingroup$

                        Now, the dimensionality says that we should get multiple solutions in general - the problem is finding one. A concept that will get us there? The pseudoinverse. We can't have a full two-sided inverse for the non-square matrix $v_2$, so we find a one-sided inverse $v_2^+$ so that $v_2^+v_2 = I_2$, the $2times 2$ identity. This $v_2^+$, of course, will be a $2times 3$ matrix. Then $A = v_1v_2^+$ will be a solution: $(v_1v_2^+)v_2=v_1(v_2^+v_2) = v_1$.



                        How do we construct such a matrix? The reference I linked has a bunch of methods, which probably went way over your head. Also, the standard version there has more properties than we need; we're looking for a solution, not the "best" solution. Don't sweat it if we don't end up with exactly the same thing as in the link. So then, let's go elementary. Switch over to the linear transform viewpoint; we have a linear map $T$ from a vector space $U$ of dimension $n$ to another vector space $W$ of dimension $m$. Choose a basis $w_1,w_2,dots$ for the image of $T$ in $W$. For each $w_i$, choose some $u_iin U$ so that $T(u_i)=w_i$. The $u_i$ are a linearly independent set in $U$. Extend both the $u_i$ and the $w_i$ to bases of their respective spaces $U$ and $W$; usually, we will only have to do this for the larger space.

                        Now, we define $T^+$ as follows: for $ile min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)=w_i$. For $i>min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)$ can be anything - we don't care, but we'll make them zero just to standardize. Then, since $(T^+T)w_i = T^+(Tw_i)=T^+u_i=w_i$ for each $ile m$, $T^+T$ is the identity on $W$.



                        All right, back to our setup with $3times 2$ matrices. We have $m=2 <3=n$, so we won't have any "extra" vectors to send to zero. There are two length-3 columns of $v_2$, which will be our $w_1$ and $w_2$ (unless they're linearly dependent). What $u_i$ can we use to make $v_2 u_i = w_i$? Well, the standard basis vectors $e_1=begin{pmatrix}1\0end{pmatrix}$ and $e_2=begin{pmatrix}0\1end{pmatrix}$ will do the trick. Then $w_3$ needs to be something linearly independent from $w_1$ and $w_2$ - we make an arbitrary choice here. For something easily constructed, take the cross product.

                        Now, to construct a matrix $v_2^+$ with $v_2^+ w_1=e_1$, $v_2^+w_2=e_2$, $v_2^+w_3=e_3$. In matrix form, that's
                        $$v_2^+begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}e_1&e_2&0
                        end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}$$

                        $$v_2^+ = begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}^{-1}$$
                        Right-multiplying by that $2times 3$ truncated identity can be summarized simply: throw away the third row.



                        All right, what if the columns of $v_2$ are linearly dependent? The construction is still there, but now only $w_1$ is actually in the column space of $v_2$. It still satisfies the official pseudoinverse property $v_2v_2^+v_2=v_2$, but we no longer have $v_2^+v_2=I_2$. As such, we can expect not to get solutions, and we won't unless the column space of $v_1$ is contained in the column space of $v_2$. If it is, the pseudoinverse construction will give one.



                        Now, this choice $A=v_1v_2^+$ is not invertible - it has rank $2$. Can we find an invertible matrix that will also be a solution, and give $A^{-1}v_2=v_1$ as well? We'll need to add some $B$ such that $Bv_2=0$ and $A+B$ is invertible. The rows in $B$ must be orthogonal to the columns of $v_2$, so they'll be multiples of that cross product $w_3^T$. In order to make $A'=A+B$ invertible, we need to avoid the rows of $B$ satisfying the same linear combination as the rows of $A$ - just add to the non-pivot row to make this happen. Then $A'$ is a solution, and its inverse works on the other side automatically.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          2












                          $begingroup$

                          Now, the dimensionality says that we should get multiple solutions in general - the problem is finding one. A concept that will get us there? The pseudoinverse. We can't have a full two-sided inverse for the non-square matrix $v_2$, so we find a one-sided inverse $v_2^+$ so that $v_2^+v_2 = I_2$, the $2times 2$ identity. This $v_2^+$, of course, will be a $2times 3$ matrix. Then $A = v_1v_2^+$ will be a solution: $(v_1v_2^+)v_2=v_1(v_2^+v_2) = v_1$.



                          How do we construct such a matrix? The reference I linked has a bunch of methods, which probably went way over your head. Also, the standard version there has more properties than we need; we're looking for a solution, not the "best" solution. Don't sweat it if we don't end up with exactly the same thing as in the link. So then, let's go elementary. Switch over to the linear transform viewpoint; we have a linear map $T$ from a vector space $U$ of dimension $n$ to another vector space $W$ of dimension $m$. Choose a basis $w_1,w_2,dots$ for the image of $T$ in $W$. For each $w_i$, choose some $u_iin U$ so that $T(u_i)=w_i$. The $u_i$ are a linearly independent set in $U$. Extend both the $u_i$ and the $w_i$ to bases of their respective spaces $U$ and $W$; usually, we will only have to do this for the larger space.

                          Now, we define $T^+$ as follows: for $ile min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)=w_i$. For $i>min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)$ can be anything - we don't care, but we'll make them zero just to standardize. Then, since $(T^+T)w_i = T^+(Tw_i)=T^+u_i=w_i$ for each $ile m$, $T^+T$ is the identity on $W$.



                          All right, back to our setup with $3times 2$ matrices. We have $m=2 <3=n$, so we won't have any "extra" vectors to send to zero. There are two length-3 columns of $v_2$, which will be our $w_1$ and $w_2$ (unless they're linearly dependent). What $u_i$ can we use to make $v_2 u_i = w_i$? Well, the standard basis vectors $e_1=begin{pmatrix}1\0end{pmatrix}$ and $e_2=begin{pmatrix}0\1end{pmatrix}$ will do the trick. Then $w_3$ needs to be something linearly independent from $w_1$ and $w_2$ - we make an arbitrary choice here. For something easily constructed, take the cross product.

                          Now, to construct a matrix $v_2^+$ with $v_2^+ w_1=e_1$, $v_2^+w_2=e_2$, $v_2^+w_3=e_3$. In matrix form, that's
                          $$v_2^+begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}e_1&e_2&0
                          end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}$$

                          $$v_2^+ = begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}^{-1}$$
                          Right-multiplying by that $2times 3$ truncated identity can be summarized simply: throw away the third row.



                          All right, what if the columns of $v_2$ are linearly dependent? The construction is still there, but now only $w_1$ is actually in the column space of $v_2$. It still satisfies the official pseudoinverse property $v_2v_2^+v_2=v_2$, but we no longer have $v_2^+v_2=I_2$. As such, we can expect not to get solutions, and we won't unless the column space of $v_1$ is contained in the column space of $v_2$. If it is, the pseudoinverse construction will give one.



                          Now, this choice $A=v_1v_2^+$ is not invertible - it has rank $2$. Can we find an invertible matrix that will also be a solution, and give $A^{-1}v_2=v_1$ as well? We'll need to add some $B$ such that $Bv_2=0$ and $A+B$ is invertible. The rows in $B$ must be orthogonal to the columns of $v_2$, so they'll be multiples of that cross product $w_3^T$. In order to make $A'=A+B$ invertible, we need to avoid the rows of $B$ satisfying the same linear combination as the rows of $A$ - just add to the non-pivot row to make this happen. Then $A'$ is a solution, and its inverse works on the other side automatically.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            2












                            2








                            2





                            $begingroup$

                            Now, the dimensionality says that we should get multiple solutions in general - the problem is finding one. A concept that will get us there? The pseudoinverse. We can't have a full two-sided inverse for the non-square matrix $v_2$, so we find a one-sided inverse $v_2^+$ so that $v_2^+v_2 = I_2$, the $2times 2$ identity. This $v_2^+$, of course, will be a $2times 3$ matrix. Then $A = v_1v_2^+$ will be a solution: $(v_1v_2^+)v_2=v_1(v_2^+v_2) = v_1$.



                            How do we construct such a matrix? The reference I linked has a bunch of methods, which probably went way over your head. Also, the standard version there has more properties than we need; we're looking for a solution, not the "best" solution. Don't sweat it if we don't end up with exactly the same thing as in the link. So then, let's go elementary. Switch over to the linear transform viewpoint; we have a linear map $T$ from a vector space $U$ of dimension $n$ to another vector space $W$ of dimension $m$. Choose a basis $w_1,w_2,dots$ for the image of $T$ in $W$. For each $w_i$, choose some $u_iin U$ so that $T(u_i)=w_i$. The $u_i$ are a linearly independent set in $U$. Extend both the $u_i$ and the $w_i$ to bases of their respective spaces $U$ and $W$; usually, we will only have to do this for the larger space.

                            Now, we define $T^+$ as follows: for $ile min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)=w_i$. For $i>min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)$ can be anything - we don't care, but we'll make them zero just to standardize. Then, since $(T^+T)w_i = T^+(Tw_i)=T^+u_i=w_i$ for each $ile m$, $T^+T$ is the identity on $W$.



                            All right, back to our setup with $3times 2$ matrices. We have $m=2 <3=n$, so we won't have any "extra" vectors to send to zero. There are two length-3 columns of $v_2$, which will be our $w_1$ and $w_2$ (unless they're linearly dependent). What $u_i$ can we use to make $v_2 u_i = w_i$? Well, the standard basis vectors $e_1=begin{pmatrix}1\0end{pmatrix}$ and $e_2=begin{pmatrix}0\1end{pmatrix}$ will do the trick. Then $w_3$ needs to be something linearly independent from $w_1$ and $w_2$ - we make an arbitrary choice here. For something easily constructed, take the cross product.

                            Now, to construct a matrix $v_2^+$ with $v_2^+ w_1=e_1$, $v_2^+w_2=e_2$, $v_2^+w_3=e_3$. In matrix form, that's
                            $$v_2^+begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}e_1&e_2&0
                            end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}$$

                            $$v_2^+ = begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}^{-1}$$
                            Right-multiplying by that $2times 3$ truncated identity can be summarized simply: throw away the third row.



                            All right, what if the columns of $v_2$ are linearly dependent? The construction is still there, but now only $w_1$ is actually in the column space of $v_2$. It still satisfies the official pseudoinverse property $v_2v_2^+v_2=v_2$, but we no longer have $v_2^+v_2=I_2$. As such, we can expect not to get solutions, and we won't unless the column space of $v_1$ is contained in the column space of $v_2$. If it is, the pseudoinverse construction will give one.



                            Now, this choice $A=v_1v_2^+$ is not invertible - it has rank $2$. Can we find an invertible matrix that will also be a solution, and give $A^{-1}v_2=v_1$ as well? We'll need to add some $B$ such that $Bv_2=0$ and $A+B$ is invertible. The rows in $B$ must be orthogonal to the columns of $v_2$, so they'll be multiples of that cross product $w_3^T$. In order to make $A'=A+B$ invertible, we need to avoid the rows of $B$ satisfying the same linear combination as the rows of $A$ - just add to the non-pivot row to make this happen. Then $A'$ is a solution, and its inverse works on the other side automatically.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            Now, the dimensionality says that we should get multiple solutions in general - the problem is finding one. A concept that will get us there? The pseudoinverse. We can't have a full two-sided inverse for the non-square matrix $v_2$, so we find a one-sided inverse $v_2^+$ so that $v_2^+v_2 = I_2$, the $2times 2$ identity. This $v_2^+$, of course, will be a $2times 3$ matrix. Then $A = v_1v_2^+$ will be a solution: $(v_1v_2^+)v_2=v_1(v_2^+v_2) = v_1$.



                            How do we construct such a matrix? The reference I linked has a bunch of methods, which probably went way over your head. Also, the standard version there has more properties than we need; we're looking for a solution, not the "best" solution. Don't sweat it if we don't end up with exactly the same thing as in the link. So then, let's go elementary. Switch over to the linear transform viewpoint; we have a linear map $T$ from a vector space $U$ of dimension $n$ to another vector space $W$ of dimension $m$. Choose a basis $w_1,w_2,dots$ for the image of $T$ in $W$. For each $w_i$, choose some $u_iin U$ so that $T(u_i)=w_i$. The $u_i$ are a linearly independent set in $U$. Extend both the $u_i$ and the $w_i$ to bases of their respective spaces $U$ and $W$; usually, we will only have to do this for the larger space.

                            Now, we define $T^+$ as follows: for $ile min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)=w_i$. For $i>min(m,n)$, $T(u_i)$ can be anything - we don't care, but we'll make them zero just to standardize. Then, since $(T^+T)w_i = T^+(Tw_i)=T^+u_i=w_i$ for each $ile m$, $T^+T$ is the identity on $W$.



                            All right, back to our setup with $3times 2$ matrices. We have $m=2 <3=n$, so we won't have any "extra" vectors to send to zero. There are two length-3 columns of $v_2$, which will be our $w_1$ and $w_2$ (unless they're linearly dependent). What $u_i$ can we use to make $v_2 u_i = w_i$? Well, the standard basis vectors $e_1=begin{pmatrix}1\0end{pmatrix}$ and $e_2=begin{pmatrix}0\1end{pmatrix}$ will do the trick. Then $w_3$ needs to be something linearly independent from $w_1$ and $w_2$ - we make an arbitrary choice here. For something easily constructed, take the cross product.

                            Now, to construct a matrix $v_2^+$ with $v_2^+ w_1=e_1$, $v_2^+w_2=e_2$, $v_2^+w_3=e_3$. In matrix form, that's
                            $$v_2^+begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}e_1&e_2&0
                            end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}$$

                            $$v_2^+ = begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\0&1&0end{pmatrix}begin{pmatrix}w_1&w_2&w_3end{pmatrix}^{-1}$$
                            Right-multiplying by that $2times 3$ truncated identity can be summarized simply: throw away the third row.



                            All right, what if the columns of $v_2$ are linearly dependent? The construction is still there, but now only $w_1$ is actually in the column space of $v_2$. It still satisfies the official pseudoinverse property $v_2v_2^+v_2=v_2$, but we no longer have $v_2^+v_2=I_2$. As such, we can expect not to get solutions, and we won't unless the column space of $v_1$ is contained in the column space of $v_2$. If it is, the pseudoinverse construction will give one.



                            Now, this choice $A=v_1v_2^+$ is not invertible - it has rank $2$. Can we find an invertible matrix that will also be a solution, and give $A^{-1}v_2=v_1$ as well? We'll need to add some $B$ such that $Bv_2=0$ and $A+B$ is invertible. The rows in $B$ must be orthogonal to the columns of $v_2$, so they'll be multiples of that cross product $w_3^T$. In order to make $A'=A+B$ invertible, we need to avoid the rows of $B$ satisfying the same linear combination as the rows of $A$ - just add to the non-pivot row to make this happen. Then $A'$ is a solution, and its inverse works on the other side automatically.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 2 hours ago









                            jmerryjmerry

                            4,404514




                            4,404514






















                                user5826447 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                user5826447 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                user5826447 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                user5826447 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                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%2f3082731%2fsolving-for-unknown-3x3-matrix%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

                                Costa Masnaga

                                Fotorealismo

                                Sidney Franklin