Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Inverse of a Matrix
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:17:30 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: John D'Errico (1-3LEW5R)
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <fducha$n0j$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <fdsglc$6b7$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fdt3n2$kej$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fdu7m7$ijo$1@fred.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: "John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-02-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1191359850 23571 172.30.248.37 (2 Oct 2007 21:17:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:17:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 869215
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:431083



"Ravi " <vioravis.nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message <fdu7m7$ijo
$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> John and others,
> 
> Thanks for your replies. I am not in a position to avoid
> using matrix inversion. pinv really seems to give some
> erratic answers for some of the test cases I have. I would
> like to if there is a method to calculate the inverse using
> Cholesky decomposition and if so, whether it would be better
> than the inv operation in MATLAB?

Can you explain how you perceive pinv is giving
erratic results? An example would be useful.

A true matrix inverse should be far more erratic
than pinv. And unless your matrix is symmetric
positive definite, cholesky is not an option.

John