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). …
Method: When the Determinant is Zero — Distinguishing 'No Solution' from 'Infinitely Many'
A zero determinant only tells you A−1 does not exist; it never by itself tells you whether the system is inconsistent or has infinitely many solutions. This method shows how to decide which.
Steps
Step 1: Write the system as AX=B and compute det(A)
Expand a 3×3 determinant along any row (the first row is usually simplest), using the alternating cofactor sign pattern +,−,+:
Mistake 1: Concluding 'no solution' the instant det(A)=0, without checking further
Why it's wrong: det(A)=0 only rules out a UNIQUE solution — it is consistent with either 'no solution' or 'infinitely many.' Here it happens to be no solution, but that had to be confirmed separately by finding a genuine contradiction (4y−2z=−1 from one combination versus 4y−2z=−2 from another), not assumed from the zero determinant alone. Correct approach: treat det(A)=0 as a trigger to test the equations directly, never as the final answer by itself.
Mistake 2: A sign error in the 3×3 cofactor expansion …