-2

Can anyone provide the analytical solution of the following $n\times n$ system of linear equations

$\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} a & -b & -b & ... & -b\\ -b & a & -b & ... & -b\\ -b & -b & a & ... & -b\\ : & : & : & ... & : \\ : & : & : & ... &: & \\ -b & -b & -b & ... & a \\ \end{pmatrix}}_{A}\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ :\\ :\\ x_n \end{pmatrix}}_{X}=\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}y_1\\ y_2\\ y_3\\ :\\ :\\ y_n \end{pmatrix}}_{Y} $ where $A_{(n\times n)}$ is a symmetric matrix and $a$, $b$, $y_i$ are positive real numbers.

Note: I would appreciate if someone could provide more details about the theory of eigenvalues-eigenvectors related to the solutuion of a linear system of eaquations.

Nav89
  • 253
  • 2
    It may not work, but what I would try : see for $n=2$ and $n=3$ if you can guess a pater for the caracteristic polynomial. And if yes, try to prove it by induction. 2) Diagonalise the matrix. 3) Conclude. – Surb Mar 11 '21 at 13:39
  • 1
    Thanks but I would like someone to provide a proof with at least some steps. I do not reme,ber this whole theory of solving such a system of linear equations. The last time I faced this was as an undergraduate back in 2008...If you could give some details by writing a proof I would appreciate it! – Nav89 Mar 11 '21 at 13:42
  • The determinant of your matrix $A$ is known. So you can solve $Ax=b$ by $x=A^{-1}b$, for the case where $\det(A)\neq 0$. Otherwise it is easy, too. – Dietrich Burde Mar 11 '21 at 13:48
  • All numbers are deifferent of zero, so... I conjecture that $det(A)\neq 0$ – Nav89 Mar 11 '21 at 13:51
  • You don't have to make a conjecture, just read the duplicate and compute the determinant! There is a formula. – Dietrich Burde Mar 11 '21 at 13:53
  • @Dietrich Burde thank you very much, but you don't mind If I take my time and w8 if someone has to give a full solution...no offence... – Nav89 Mar 11 '21 at 13:58
  • Don't worry. I just wanted to help you, and this is already the full solution in the duplicate. Your solution is $x=A^{-1}b$. – Dietrich Burde Mar 11 '21 at 14:00
  • In the duplicate the rows are reduced in an upper triangle matrix solve for $x_2, x_3, \cdots x_n $ you will get $x_1$ and you are done – Tutankhamun Mar 11 '21 at 14:17

3 Answers3

2

Hint

Use linear combinations in the main matrix:

  • Take every line (except the first) minus the first:

$$\begin{pmatrix} a & -b & -b & ... & -b\\ -(a+b) & a+b & 0 & ... & 0\\ -(a+b) & 0 & a+b & ... & 0\\ : & : & : & ... & : \\ : & : & : & ... &: & \\ -(a+b) & 0 & 0 & ... & a+b \\ \end{pmatrix} $$

  • Now sum at the first column, the sum of the other columns:

$$\begin{pmatrix} a-(n-1)b & -b & -b & ... & -b\\ 0 & a+b & 0 & ... & 0\\ 0 & 0 & a+b & ... & 0\\ : & : & : & ... & : \\ : & : & : & ... &: & \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & ... & a+b \\ \end{pmatrix} $$

Can you finish?

Arnaldo
  • 21,342
2

The matrix is of type: linear combination of the identity and a rank $1$ matrix, the latter being the matrix all of whose entries are $-b$, call it $B$. Then $B$ is easily diagonalisable, with an $n-1$ dimensional kernel (eigenspace for $0$) given by the equation $x_1+\dots+x_n=0$, and a $1$ dimensional other eigenspace, spanned by $(1,1,\ldots,1)$, whose eigenvalue for $B$ equals $-nb$. We have $A=B+(a+b)I_n$; the eigenspaces of $B$ are also eigenspaces for $A$, but with eigenvalues $\lambda=a+b$ respectively $\mu=-nb+a+b=a+(1-n)b$.

The linear problem is easy to solve on each eigenspace: on the $n-1$ dimensional eigenspace $A$ acts by multiplication by $\lambda$ and, provided $\lambda\neq0$, the solution will be $X=\frac1\lambda Y$, while on the $1$-dimensional eigenspace $A$ acts by multiplication by $\lambda$ and, provided $\mu\neq0$, the solution will be $X=\frac1\mu Y$. For the general solution one can decompose $Y$ into its projections $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ on the two eigenspaces, and provided both $\lambda=a+b$ and $\mu=a+(1-n)b$ are nonzero one can find the solution by adding the solutions associated to $Y_1$ and $Y_2$. One has $Y_2=\frac{(y_1+\cdots+y_n)}n(1,1,\ldots,1)$ and $Y_1=Y-Y_2$; the general solution then is $X=\frac1\lambda Y_1+\frac1\mu Y_2$. Working this out explicitly is a bit messy, but straightforward.

Here is a concrete example if you find this too abstract. Take $n=5$, $a=2$ and $b=1$. Then neither $\lambda=a+b=3$ nor $\mu=a+(1-n)b=-2$ is zero, so the problem is solvable for all $Y$. Take for instance $Y=(3,-1,2,5,-4)$, it decomposes as the sum of a multiple $Y_2$ of $(1,1,1,1,1)$ by the scalar $\frac{3-1+2+5-4}5=1$, and a vector $Y_1=Y-Y_2=(2,-2,1,4,-5)$ whose sum of coordinates is $0$. The solution for $X$ then is $\frac1\lambda Y_1+\frac1\mu Y_2=\frac13(2,-2,1,4,-5)-\frac12(1,1,1,1,1)=\frac16(1,-7,-1,5,-13)$.

1

You can write your equations as $$ \left((a+b)I-b\mathbb{1}\mathbb{1}^T\right)x=y\ ,$$ where $\ \mathbb{1}\ $ is the column vector whose entries are all $1$. Multiplying this equation on the left by the row vector $\ \mathbb{1}^T\ $ gives \begin{align} (a+b)\mathbb{1}^Tx-b\mathbb{1}^T\mathbb{1}\mathbb{1}^Tx&=\mathbb{1}^Ty\\ &=\big(a-(n-1)b\big)\mathbb{1}^Tx\ ,\\ \hspace{-18em}\text{or}\\ \mathbb{1}^Tx&=\big(a-(n-1)b\big)^{-1}\mathbb{1}^Ty\ , \end{align} provided $\ a-(n-1)b\ne0\ $. Now rewriting the first equation above as $$ (a+b)x=y+b\mathbb{1}\mathbb{1}^Tx\ , $$ and substituting $\ \big(a-(n-1)b\big)^{-1}\mathbb{1}^Ty\ $ for $\ \mathbb{1}^Tx\ $ gives \begin{align} x&=\left(\frac{1}{a+b}\right)y+\left(\frac{b}{(a+b)\big(a-(n-1)b\big)}\right)\mathbb{1}\mathbb{1}^Ty\\ &=\left(\left(\frac{1}{a+b}\right)I+\left(\frac{b}{(a+b)\big(a-(n-1)b\big)}\right)\mathbb{1}\mathbb{1}^T\right)y\ , \end{align} provided $\ (a+b)\ne0\ $, which gives you the solution to your problem.

lonza leggiera
  • 28,646
  • 2
  • 12
  • 33
  • what is $b_{11}^{T}$ can you clarify this a little? – Nav89 Mar 11 '21 at 14:45
  • 1
    There is no $\ b_{11}^T\ $ anywhere in my answer, so I'm not sure I understand your question. The column vector $\ \mathbb{1}\ $ is $$\pmatrix{1\1\\vdots\1}\ ,$$ so $$ b\mathbb{1}\mathbb{1}^T=\pmatrix{b&b&\dots&b\ b&b&\dots&b\ \vdots&\vdots&\dots&\vdots\ b&b&\dots&b}\ . $$ – lonza leggiera Mar 11 '21 at 14:56
  • What do you mean by saying that ``if you can find an expression for $\ \sum_\limits{i=1}^nx_i\ $ in terms of $\ y\ $". What kind of expression? The problem has the aforementioned formulation in its simple case...Could you give me more details ore answer with respect to my problem? – Nav89 Mar 13 '21 at 08:45
  • 1
    What I mean by "find an expression for $\sum_\limits{i=1}^nx_i$ in terms of $y$" is "express $\sum_\limits{i=1}^nx_i$ as a function of $y$". In fact, since the equations are linear, you can expect to be able to express $\sum_\limits{i=1}^nx_i$ as a linear function of $y$, and my answer outlined one way to do this. I don't understand the rest of your question. The first equation in my answer is simply a restatement of your problem in a form which is easier to see how to solve. But in any case,I have now revised the answer to include the full solution. – lonza leggiera Mar 13 '21 at 16:27
  • Everything is ok! Sorry if I confused you! – Nav89 Mar 13 '21 at 19:08