How do I get the inverse of a matrix in python? I've implemented it myself, but it's pure python, and I suspect there are faster modules out there to do it.
This question is related to
python
algorithm
matrix
linear-algebra
matrix-inverse
You could calculate the determinant of the matrix which is recursive and then form the adjoined matrix
I think this only works for square matrices
Another way of computing these involves gram-schmidt orthogonalization and then transposing the matrix, the transpose of an orthogonalized matrix is its inverse!
If you hate numpy, get out RPy and your local copy of R, and use it instead.
(I would also echo to make you you really need to invert the matrix. In R, for example, linalg.solve and the solve() function don't actually do a full inversion, since it is unnecessary.)
It is a pity that the chosen matrix, repeated here again, is either singular or badly conditioned:
A = matrix( [[1,2,3],[11,12,13],[21,22,23]])
By definition, the inverse of A when multiplied by the matrix A itself must give a unit matrix. The A chosen in the much praised explanation does not do that. In fact just looking at the inverse gives a clue that the inversion did not work correctly. Look at the magnitude of the individual terms - they are very, very big compared with the terms of the original A matrix...
It is remarkable that the humans when picking an example of a matrix so often manage to pick a singular matrix!
I did have a problem with the solution, so looked into it further. On the ubuntu-kubuntu platform, the debian package numpy does not have the matrix and the linalg sub-packages, so in addition to import of numpy, scipy needs to be imported also.
If the diagonal terms of A are multiplied by a large enough factor, say 2, the matrix will most likely cease to be singular or near singular. So
A = matrix( [[2,2,3],[11,24,13],[21,22,46]])
becomes neither singular nor nearly singular and the example gives meaningful results... When dealing with floating numbers one must be watchful for the effects of inavoidable round off errors.
Thanks for your contribution,
OldAl.
For those like me, who were looking for a pure Python solution without pandas or numpy involved, check out the following GitHub project: https://github.com/ThomIves/MatrixInverse.
It generously provides a very good explanation of how the process looks like "behind the scenes". The author has nicely described the step-by-step approach and presented some practical examples, all easy to follow.
This is just a little code snippet from there to illustrate the approach very briefly (AM is the source matrix, IM is the identity matrix of the same size):
def invert_matrix(AM, IM):
for fd in range(len(AM)):
fdScaler = 1.0 / AM[fd][fd]
for j in range(len(AM)):
AM[fd][j] *= fdScaler
IM[fd][j] *= fdScaler
for i in list(range(len(AM)))[0:fd] + list(range(len(AM)))[fd+1:]:
crScaler = AM[i][fd]
for j in range(len(AM)):
AM[i][j] = AM[i][j] - crScaler * AM[fd][j]
IM[i][j] = IM[i][j] - crScaler * IM[fd][j]
return IM
But please do follow the entire thing, you'll learn a lot more than just copy-pasting this code! There's a Jupyter notebook as well, btw.
Hope that helps someone, I personally found it extremely useful for my very particular task (Absorbing Markov Chain) where I wasn't able to use any non-standard packages.
Numpy will be suitable for most people, but you can also do matrices in Sympy
Try running these commands at http://live.sympy.org/
M = Matrix([[1, 3], [-2, 3]])
M
M**-1
For fun, try M**(1/2)
Make sure you really need to invert the matrix. This is often unnecessary and can be numerically unstable. When most people ask how to invert a matrix, they really want to know how to solve Ax = b where A is a matrix and x and b are vectors. It's more efficient and more accurate to use code that solves the equation Ax = b for x directly than to calculate A inverse then multiply the inverse by B. Even if you need to solve Ax = b for many b values, it's not a good idea to invert A. If you have to solve the system for multiple b values, save the Cholesky factorization of A, but don't invert it.
For those like me, who were looking for a pure Python solution without pandas or numpy involved, check out the following GitHub project: https://github.com/ThomIves/MatrixInverse.
It generously provides a very good explanation of how the process looks like "behind the scenes". The author has nicely described the step-by-step approach and presented some practical examples, all easy to follow.
This is just a little code snippet from there to illustrate the approach very briefly (AM is the source matrix, IM is the identity matrix of the same size):
def invert_matrix(AM, IM):
for fd in range(len(AM)):
fdScaler = 1.0 / AM[fd][fd]
for j in range(len(AM)):
AM[fd][j] *= fdScaler
IM[fd][j] *= fdScaler
for i in list(range(len(AM)))[0:fd] + list(range(len(AM)))[fd+1:]:
crScaler = AM[i][fd]
for j in range(len(AM)):
AM[i][j] = AM[i][j] - crScaler * AM[fd][j]
IM[i][j] = IM[i][j] - crScaler * IM[fd][j]
return IM
But please do follow the entire thing, you'll learn a lot more than just copy-pasting this code! There's a Jupyter notebook as well, btw.
Hope that helps someone, I personally found it extremely useful for my very particular task (Absorbing Markov Chain) where I wasn't able to use any non-standard packages.
It is a pity that the chosen matrix, repeated here again, is either singular or badly conditioned:
A = matrix( [[1,2,3],[11,12,13],[21,22,23]])
By definition, the inverse of A when multiplied by the matrix A itself must give a unit matrix. The A chosen in the much praised explanation does not do that. In fact just looking at the inverse gives a clue that the inversion did not work correctly. Look at the magnitude of the individual terms - they are very, very big compared with the terms of the original A matrix...
It is remarkable that the humans when picking an example of a matrix so often manage to pick a singular matrix!
I did have a problem with the solution, so looked into it further. On the ubuntu-kubuntu platform, the debian package numpy does not have the matrix and the linalg sub-packages, so in addition to import of numpy, scipy needs to be imported also.
If the diagonal terms of A are multiplied by a large enough factor, say 2, the matrix will most likely cease to be singular or near singular. So
A = matrix( [[2,2,3],[11,24,13],[21,22,46]])
becomes neither singular nor nearly singular and the example gives meaningful results... When dealing with floating numbers one must be watchful for the effects of inavoidable round off errors.
Thanks for your contribution,
OldAl.
If you hate numpy, get out RPy and your local copy of R, and use it instead.
(I would also echo to make you you really need to invert the matrix. In R, for example, linalg.solve and the solve() function don't actually do a full inversion, since it is unnecessary.)
If you hate numpy, get out RPy and your local copy of R, and use it instead.
(I would also echo to make you you really need to invert the matrix. In R, for example, linalg.solve and the solve() function don't actually do a full inversion, since it is unnecessary.)
Numpy will be suitable for most people, but you can also do matrices in Sympy
Try running these commands at http://live.sympy.org/
M = Matrix([[1, 3], [-2, 3]])
M
M**-1
For fun, try M**(1/2)
Make sure you really need to invert the matrix. This is often unnecessary and can be numerically unstable. When most people ask how to invert a matrix, they really want to know how to solve Ax = b where A is a matrix and x and b are vectors. It's more efficient and more accurate to use code that solves the equation Ax = b for x directly than to calculate A inverse then multiply the inverse by B. Even if you need to solve Ax = b for many b values, it's not a good idea to invert A. If you have to solve the system for multiple b values, save the Cholesky factorization of A, but don't invert it.
Make sure you really need to invert the matrix. This is often unnecessary and can be numerically unstable. When most people ask how to invert a matrix, they really want to know how to solve Ax = b where A is a matrix and x and b are vectors. It's more efficient and more accurate to use code that solves the equation Ax = b for x directly than to calculate A inverse then multiply the inverse by B. Even if you need to solve Ax = b for many b values, it's not a good idea to invert A. If you have to solve the system for multiple b values, save the Cholesky factorization of A, but don't invert it.
If you hate numpy, get out RPy and your local copy of R, and use it instead.
(I would also echo to make you you really need to invert the matrix. In R, for example, linalg.solve and the solve() function don't actually do a full inversion, since it is unnecessary.)
You could calculate the determinant of the matrix which is recursive and then form the adjoined matrix
I think this only works for square matrices
Another way of computing these involves gram-schmidt orthogonalization and then transposing the matrix, the transpose of an orthogonalized matrix is its inverse!
Make sure you really need to invert the matrix. This is often unnecessary and can be numerically unstable. When most people ask how to invert a matrix, they really want to know how to solve Ax = b where A is a matrix and x and b are vectors. It's more efficient and more accurate to use code that solves the equation Ax = b for x directly than to calculate A inverse then multiply the inverse by B. Even if you need to solve Ax = b for many b values, it's not a good idea to invert A. If you have to solve the system for multiple b values, save the Cholesky factorization of A, but don't invert it.
Source: Stackoverflow.com