# Computational cost for Cramer's rule

## Contents

## Introduction

There are plenty of direct and iterative methods to solve a linear algebraic system of equations. Using Cramer's rule, one can easily obtain the solution for small systems by hand. However, with the growth of the unknowns, the method becomes computationally very expensive. Moreover, calculating a determinant by its definition may result in overflow or underflow if someone wanted to apply it on a computer. That is why Cramer's algorithm is not applied in computations.

## Algorithm

Let us regard a determinant of order . When we expand it, we use number of multiplications and additions (or subtractions) in forming the number of minors of order . The sequence can be continued until we reach the determinant of a 2-by-2 matrix which consists of 2 multiplications and 1 subtraction, by definition. This kind of method suggests the set-up of a recursion. Now, let and denote the multiplicative and additive cost (number of multiplicative and additive operations, respectively) of calculating the determinant of an -by- matrix. Then we can formulate

and

which are linear, inhomogeneous, variable coefficient one-term recursions. As we mentioned, and . If we omitted the additive and terms in the above two recursions, we would get the recursive creation of the factorial. Therefore, the computational cost of calculating a determinant is at least . According to Cramer's rule (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CramersRule.html), we need to calculate the value of determinants and additionally carry out divisions. So the final number of multiplicative () and additive () operations needed to determine the solution of a linear system is

According to Maple 16, there is an explicit solution for it, namely

where is the base of the natural logarithm, is the (complete), is the incomplete gamma function. (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IncompleteGammaFunction.html) The incomplete gamma function is defined a bit differently in MATLAB. By definition, the connection among the lower and upper incomplete gamma function and the complete gamma function is

The built-in MATLAB function calculates

therefore the upper incomplete gamma function we obtained for the exact solution of the recursions with Maple can be expressed with the built-in MATLAB functions and as

Substituting this formula to the exact solutions for and , after rearranging we obtain

## Examples

Since core MATLAB has the incomplete gamma function built in, we implemented both variants, i.e. the recursive and the explicit method. The user can choose which method to use. Our function, returns the number of multiplicative and additive operations for a linear system of size .

Now let's see an example for . It is often calculated by hand in many applications (e.g. one degree of freedom motion in 3D).

```
[M A] = cost4cramer(3) % could have been [M A] = cost4cramer(3,'recursive')
```

M = 39 A = 20

Since we called with one input argument, it calculates the operation cost using a for-loop. What is the case for ?

```
[M A] = cost4cramer(5,'explicit')
```

M = 1235 A = 714

This time the operation count is determined by the explicit formula including gamma functions. It is evident that it is very inconvenient to calculate all of it by hand. The next figure shows the factorial complexity of Cramer's rule for both multiplicative and additive operations.

n = 2:14; M = zeros(size(n)); A = M; for k = 2:14 [M(k-1) A(k-1)] = cost4cramer(k); end [ax, Mline, Aline] = plotyy(n,M,n,A,'semilogy'); set(get(ax(1),'Ylabel'), 'FontSize',16, 'String','Multiplicative'); set(get(ax(2),'Ylabel'), 'FontSize',16, 'String','Additive'); set([Mline Aline], 'Marker','o'); xlabel('n','FontSize',16);

There is a minor difference in the computed results regarding the recursive and the explicit approach:

difference = n; for k = 2:14 M_rec = cost4cramer(k,'recursive'); M_exp = cost4cramer(k,'explicit'); difference(k-1) = abs(M_rec - M_exp); end plot(n,difference,'-o'); xlabel('n', 'FontSize',16); ylabel('$|M_{\rm{recursive}}-M_{\rm{explicit}}|$', ... 'FontSize',16, 'Interpreter','latex');

## Conclusion

An analytical and numerical study was carried out to investigate the operation count for Cramer's rule. As expected, it becomes prohibited even for small . Moreover, its numerical applicability is worse than that of the other direct methods.