Solving a System of Equations by the Matrix Method
A system of linear equations can be written as a single matrix equation and solved in one clean step using the inverse of a matrix. This is the Class-12 "matrix method" for simultaneous equations.
If det(A)=0, then A−1 exists, and multiplying both sides on the left by A−1 gives
X=A−1B,where A−1=det(A)1adj(A).
So you compute det(A), then adj(A), form A−1, and multiply by B. The single column X=A−1B hands you x, y, z at once, and because A−1 is unique, the solution is unique.
Watch out
Multiply in the correct order: X=A−1B, not BA−1. Matrix multiplication is not commutative, and BA−1 is not even defined here.
When det(A)=0
If det(A)=0, A−1 does not exist and the inverse method fails. The system is then either inconsistent (no solution) or has infinitely many solutions. Decide which by computing (adjA)B:
(adjA)B=O → no solution (inconsistent).
(adjA)B=O → infinitely many solutions (consistent, dependent). …
When one equation of a 3-variable system carries a letter parameter (here a) instead of a fixed number, the technique is to eliminate the parameter-free variables first, then examine how the parameter controls the remaining equation.
Steps
Step 1: Eliminate variables using only the parameter-free equations
Combine the equations that do NOT contain the parameter (here, equations 1 and 2) using standard elimination, to pin down as many variables as possible before the parameter ever enters the picture.
Step 2: Express the remaining variable(s) in terms of one free variable
Use the parameter-free relation from Step 1 (typically of the form x+z=constant or similar) to write one variable in terms of another, ready to substitute into the parameter equation.
Step 3: Substitute into the parameter equation and isolate the parameter's role
a(…)=constant
After substitution, the third equation collapses to the parameter multiplying a single expression in one remaining variable.
Step 4: Split into cases on whether the parameter is zero …
Mistake 1: Dividing by a without first considering a=0 separately
Why it's wrong: the third equation reduces to a(1+z)=4; solving this as z=a4−1 silently assumes a=0. If a=0, this division is undefined, and the equation instead becomes 0=4, an outright contradiction — a completely different (inconsistent) case that gets missed entirely if you divide first without checking. Correct approach: whenever a parameter multiplies an expression that must be isolated, explicitly test the parameter's zero value as its own case before dividing by it.
Mistake 2: Not verifying the a=0 solution against the untouched first equation …