>>11
Wikipedia for reference? LULZ.
"but seriously if you don't want to look like a jackass, take a class on linear algebra or
read at least read a book, cause right now you sound like an ignant troll"
Back to school faggot, and maybe take that English class that you missed back in fifth grade about proper punctuation and spelling.
Also, this is /prog/, not /math/, GTFO, trolled.
>>12
These algorithms are also more related to mathematics and computer science rather than programming since programming has real world constraints and the other two does not aside from their respective laws.
>>13
The OP question can be answered with two sentences:
Stop trying to sound smart, dumbass. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
This entire thread consists of subtle bitching about the FACT that floating point numbers in computers cannot represent exact values, FOR FUCKS SAKE that problem was identified when floating point numbers were first introduced.
For matrix inversion, make a Fraction class with integers to avoid float round off errors or use higher precision floats, but make sure the answer is round off at a point less than the precision limit.
Also the adjoint matrix can be used to find inverse if I remember correctly, adjoint matrix involves determinants so there is no floating round off error unless the original matrix consists of real non-rational numbers, in that case, you can't do anything about it since it is a limitation on behalf of the machine. Although using the adjoint matrix is still far more preferable to Gauss-Jordan reduction for smaller matrices.