Solutions
- This exercise is recommended for all readers.
 
- Problem 1
 
Use Gauss-Jordan reduction to solve each system.
- Answer
 
These answers show only the Gauss-Jordan reduction. With it, describing the solution set is easy.
- 
 -  A row swap here makes the arithmetic easier.
 - 
 
- This exercise is recommended for all readers.
 
- Problem 2
 
Find the reduced echelon form of each matrix.
- Answer
 
Use Gauss-Jordan reduction.
- This exercise is recommended for all readers.
 
- Problem 3
 
Find each solution set by using Gauss-Jordan reduction, then reading off the parametrization.
- Answer
 
For the "Gauss" halves, see the answers to Problem I.2.5.
-  The "Jordan" half goes this way.
The solution set is this
 -  The second half is
so the solution is this.
 -  This Jordan half
gives
(of course, the zero vector could be omitted from the description).
 -  The "Jordan" half
ends with this solution set.
 
- Problem 4
 
Give two distinct echelon form versions of this matrix.
- Answer
 
Routine Gauss' method gives one:
and any cosmetic change, like multiplying the bottom row by ,
gives another.
- This exercise is recommended for all readers.
 
- Problem 5
 
List the reduced echelon forms possible for each size.
- Answer
 
In the cases listed below, we take . Thus, some canonical forms listed below actually include infinitely many cases. In particular, they includes the cases and .
- , , ,
 - , , , , , ,
 - , , ,
 - , , , , , ,
 
- This exercise is recommended for all readers.
 
- Problem 6
 
What results from applying Gauss-Jordan reduction to a nonsingular matrix?
- Answer
 
A nonsingular homogeneous linear system has a unique solution. So a nonsingular matrix must reduce to a (square) matrix that is all 's except for 's down the upper-left to lower-right diagonal, e.g.,
- Problem 7
 
The proof of Lemma 4 contains a reference to the condition on the row pivoting operation.
- The definition of row operations has an condition on the swap operation . Show that in this condition is not needed.
 - Write down a matrix with nonzero entries, and show that the operation is not reversed by .
 - Expand the proof of that lemma to make explicit exactly where the condition on pivoting is used.
 
- Answer
 
- The operation does not change .
 -  For instance,
leaves the matrix changed.
 -  If  then
does indeed give back. (Of course, if then the third matrix would have entries of the form .)