Intermediate Algebra
Answer/Discussion to Practice
Problems
on Solving Systems of Linear
Equations
in Three Variables
Answer/Discussion
to 1a

|
| Note that the numbers in ( ) are equation
numbers. They will be used throughout the problems for reference
purposes. |
| No simplification needed here. Let's go on to the next step. |
| Note that each equation is missing a variable. For example, equation
(1) is missing z. We can use this to our advantage. We can
use the equation in it's original form as an equation with a variable eliminated.
I choose to eliminate z.
Since z is already eliminated from the
first equation we will use that first equation in its original form for
this step: |
 |
*z is already
eliminated from eq. (1) |
| Now we can't just stop here for of two reasons. First, we would
be stuck because we have one equation and two unknowns. Second, when
we solve a system it has to be a solution of ALL equations involved and
we have not incorporated the third equation yet. Let's do that now. |
| We are still going after eliminating z,
this time I want to use the second and the third equations.
Since the z terms of the second and third equations are already opposites,
we can go right into adding them. |
 |
*z's have opposite
coefficients
*z's dropped out |
| Putting the two equations that we have found together we now have a
system of two equations and two unknowns, which we can solve just like
the ones shown in tutorial 19 (Solving a System of Linear Equations in
Two variables) . You can use either elimination or substitution.
I'm going to go ahead and stick with the elimination method to complete
this.
Let's first put those equations together: |
 |
*Put equations found in steps 2 and 3
together into one system |
| I'm going to choose y to eliminate.
I can either multiply the first equation by -1 or the second, either way
will create opposites in front of the y terms.
Multiplying equation (4) by -1 and then adding the equations together
we get: |
 |
*Mult. eq. (4) by -1
*y's have opposite
coefficients
*y's dropped out |
 |
*Inverse of mult. by -2 is div. by -2 |
| If we go back one step to the system that had two equations and
two variables and plug in ½ for x in equation (1) we would
get: |
 |
*Eq. (1)
*Plug in 1/2 for x
*Inverse of add 1 is sub. 1
|
| Now we need to go back to the original system and pick any equation
to plug in the two known variables and solve for our last variable .
I choose equation (2) to plug in 1 for y
that we found: |
 |
*Eq. (2)
*Plug in 1 for y
*Inverse of add 1 is sub. 1 |
| You will find that if you plug the ordered triple (1/2, 1, 2) into
ALL THREE equations of the original system, that this is a solution to
ALL THREE of them.
(1/2, 1, 2) is a solution to our system.
(return to
problem 1a) |
Answer/Discussion
to 1b

|
| Note that the numbers in ( ) are equation
numbers. They will be used throughout the problems for reference
purposes. |
| No simplification needed here. Let's go on to the next step. |
| Let's start by picking our first variable to eliminate. I'm going
to pick z to eliminate. We need to do
this with ANY pair of equations.
Let's first eliminate z using the first
and second equations. This process is identical to how we approached
it with the systems found in Tutorial 19: Solving a System of Linear Equations
in Two variables . If I multiply 2 times the first equation, then
the z terms will be opposites of each other
and ultimately drop out.
Multiplying 2 times the first equation and then adding that to the
second equation we get: |
 |
*Mult. eq (1) by 2
*z's have opposite
coefficients
*All three variables drop out AND
we have a FALSE statement |
| Wow, that was quick. All of our variables dropped out and we
ended up with a FALSE statement. You know what that means?
No solution. |
| Since we have no solution, there is no value to be found here. |
| Since we have no solution, there is no value to be found here. |
| Since we have no solution, there is no value to be found here. |
All contents copyright (C) 2001 - 2008, WTAMU and Kim Seward. All rights reserved. Last revised on Jan. 7, 2002 by Kim Seward. |