Re: Inverse Matrix Function appears a bit wonky

[Michael Creel]

For 2x2 matrices made up of integers between -3 and +3, the answer is 
obviously 14.4%. If you can't see that at first sight, try running the 
attached script. Sheesh!
Michael

On Thursday 04 November 2004 16:33, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>    Your arbitrary test matrix is ill-conditioned so any attempt to invert
>    ...
>    accuracy. For another example, try hilb(n) * inv(hilb(n)) for n = 1,
>    2, ..., 15. The Hilbert matrix is famously illconditioned for large n.
>
> it is so frequent that it's even funny: people come up with a random
> small-dimension matrix, typically made up of smallish integers, and
> get a singular one. Does anyone know how dense is the set of singular
> matrices in the set of all small-size, small-value matrices? is it
> really that dense, or are we having bad luck :)?
>
>        p
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
>
> Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
> How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
> Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
> -------------------------------------------------------------

singular.m
Description: Text Data