similar to: if using ginv function, does it mean there is no need to use solve function any more?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 40000 matches similar to: "if using ginv function, does it mean there is no need to use solve function any more?"

2005 Oct 15
1
solve() versus ginv()
Dear All, While inverting a matrix the following error appears on my console: Error in solve.default(my_matrix) : Lapack routine dgesv: system is exactly singular With this respect, I have been replacing the solve() function with ginv(): the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of a matrix. These are the questions I would like to ask you: 1. Would you also replace solve() with ginv() in
2003 Aug 07
3
ginv vs. solve
Why do x<-b%*%ginv(A) and x<-solve(A,b) give different results?. It seems that I am missing some basic feature of matrix indexing. e.g.: A<-matrix(c(0,-4,4,0),nrow=2,ncol=2) b<-c(-16,0) x<-b%*%ginv(A);x x<-solve(A,b);x Thanks in advance, Angel
2004 Nov 02
1
problem to solve a matrix
Dear R group, I have to solve a hessian matrix 40*40, called M, in order to obtain the standart deviations of estimators. When I use the function solve(M), I have the following error message: "Error in solve.default(M) : Lapack routine dgesv: system is exactly singular" Do you know an alternative approach which could succeed? I have found some information about the function
2001 Oct 18
1
AW: General Matrix Inverse
Thorsten is right. There is a direct formula for computing the Moore-Penrose inverse using the singular value composition of a matrix. This is incorporated in the following: mpinv <- function(A, eps = 1e-13) { s <- svd(A) e <- s$d e[e > eps] <- 1/e[e > eps] return(s$v %*% diag(e) %*% t(s$u)) } Hope it helps. Dietrich
2004 Feb 06
1
How to get the pseudo left inverse of a singular squarem atrix?
>I'm rusty, but not *that* rusty here, I hope. > >If W (=Z*Z' in your case) is singular, it can not have >inverse, which by >definition also mean that nothing multiply by it will >produce the identity >matrix (for otherwise it would have an inverse and >thus nonsingular). > >The definition of a generalized inverse is something >like: If A is a >non-null
2011 Mar 07
1
a numeric problem
### An numeric problem in R ######## ###I have two matrix one is########## A <- matrix(c(21.97844, 250.1960, 2752.033, 29675.88, 316318.4, 3349550, 35336827, 24.89267, 261.4211, 2691.009, 27796.02, 288738.7, 3011839, 31498784, 21.80384, 232.3765, 2460.495, 25992.77, 274001.6, 2883756, 30318645, 39.85801, 392.2341, 3971.349, 40814.22, 423126.2,
2009 Feb 04
1
reference for ginv
?ginv provides 'Modern Applied Statistics with S' (MASS), 3rd, by Venables and Ripley as the sole reference. I happen to have this book (4th ed) on loan from our library, and as far as I can see, ginv is mentioned there twice, and it is *used*, not *explained* in any way. (It is used on p. 148 in the 4th edition.) ginv does not appear in the index of MASS. ginv is an implementation of
2008 Feb 19
1
Matrix inversion
Howdy, I am trying to invert a matrix for the purposes of least squares. I have tried a number of things, and the variety of results has me confused. 1. When I try solve() I get the following: >Error in solve.default(t(X) %*% X) : system is computationally singular: reciprocal condition number = 3.76391e-20 2. When I try qr.solve(), I get: >Error in qr.solve(t(X) %*% X) : singular matrix
2016 Apr 20
0
Solving sparse, singular systems of equations
> On 20 Apr 2016, at 13:22, A A via R-help <r-help at r-project.org> wrote: > > > > > I have a situation in R where I would like to find any x (if one exists) that solves the linear system of equations Ax = b, where A is square, sparse, and singular, and b is a vector. Here is some code that mimics my issue with a relatively simple A and b, along with three other
2012 Dec 11
2
Catching errors from solve() with near-singular matrices
Dear all, The background is that I'm trying to fix this bug in the geometry package: https://r-forge.r-project.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1993&group_id=1149&atid=4552 Boiled down, the problem is that there exists at least one matrix X for which det(X) != 0 and for which solve(X) fails giving the error "system is computationally singular: reciprocal condition
2016 Apr 20
1
Solving sparse, singular systems of equations
Thanks for the help. Sorry, I am not sure why it looks like that in the mailing list - it looks much more neat on my end (see attached file). On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 2:01 PM, Berend Hasselman <bhh at xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 20 Apr 2016, at 13:22, A A via R-help <r-help at r-project.org> wrote: > > > > > I have a situation in R where I would like to
2012 Mar 14
2
Moore-Penrose Generalized determinant?
Is there a function in R to calculate the generalized determinant of a singular matrix? - similar to the ginv() used to compute the generalized inverse. I can't seem to find any R related posts at all. Thanks in advance, Sean O'Riordain Trinity College Dublin -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Moore-Penrose-Generalized-determinant-tp4471629p4471629.html Sent
2004 Mar 25
1
g-inverse question
I am using the ginv function from MASS and have run across this problem that I do not understand. If I define the matrix A as below, its g-inverse does not satisfy the Moore-Penrose condition A %*% ginv(A) %*% A = A. The matrix A is X'WX in a quadratic regression using some very large dollar values. The much simpler matrix B does satisfy the MP condition. Am I doing something wrong? Is
2008 Feb 23
1
ginv and matlab's pinv give different results
Dear all; I'm kind of confused with the results obtained using the ginv function from package MASS and pinv function from Matlab. Accroding to the documentation both functions performs a Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of a matrix X. The problem is when I change the tolerance value, say to 1E-3. Here is some output from ginv 195.2674402 235.6758714 335.0830253 8.977515484 -291.7798965
2003 Aug 14
2
How to get the pseudo left inverse of a singular square matrix?
Dear R-listers, I have a dxr matrix Z, where d > r. And the product Z*Z' is a singular square matrix. The problem is how to get the left inverse U of this singular matrix Z*Z', such that U*(Z*Z') = I? Is there any to figure it out using matrix decomposition method? Thanks a lot for your help. Fred
2004 Jul 06
2
Generate a matrix Q satisfying t(Q)%*%Q=Z and XQ=W
Hello, I have a question that is not directly related to R ... but I try to do it in R ;-) : I would like to generate a matrix Q satisfying (for a given Z, X and W) the two following conditions: t(Q)%*%Q=Z (1) XQ=W (2) where: Q is m rows and r columns X is p rows and m columns D is p rows and r columns C is r rows and r columns with m>p,r e.g: m=6, p=2 r=3
2011 May 22
2
Finding solution set of system of linear equations.
I have a simple system of linear equations to solve for X, aX=b: > a [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [1,] 1 2 1 1 [2,] 3 0 0 4 [3,] 1 -4 -2 -2 [4,] 0 0 0 0 > b [,1] [1,] 0 [2,] 2 [3,] 2 [4,] 0 (This is ex Ch1, 2.2 of Artin, Algebra). So, 3 eqs in 4 unknowns. One can easily use row-reductions to find a homogeneous solution(b=0) of: X_1
2010 Nov 21
3
Can't invert matrix
Hi, I'm trying to use the solve() function in R to invert a matrix. I get the following error, "Lapack routine dgesv: system is exactly singular" However, My matrix doesn't appear to be singular. [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [1,] 0.99252358 0.93715047 0.7540535 0.4579895 [2,] 0.01607797 0.09616267 0.2452471 0.3088614 [3,] 0.09772828 0.58451468 1.4907090
2016 Apr 20
6
Solving sparse, singular systems of equations
I have a situation in R where I would like to find any x (if one exists) that solves the linear system of equations Ax = b, where A is square, sparse, and singular, and b is a vector. Here is some code that mimics my issue with a relatively simple A and b, along with three other methods of solving this system that I found online, two of which give me an error and one of which succeeds on the
2003 Jul 11
2
using SVD to get an inverse matrix of covariance matrix
Dear R-users, I have one question about using SVD to get an inverse matrix of covariance matrix Sometimes I met many singular values d are close to 0: look this example $d [1] 4.178853e+00 2.722005e+00 2.139863e+00 1.867628e+00 1.588967e+00 [6] 1.401554e+00 1.256964e+00 1.185750e+00 1.060692e+00 9.932592e-01 [11] 9.412768e-01 8.530497e-01 8.211395e-01 8.077817e-01 7.706618e-01 [16]