Register to reply

Inverse matrices question.

by peripatein
Tags: inverse, matrices
Share this thread:
peripatein
#1
Nov15-12, 05:33 PM
P: 818
Hello,

Would it be correct to say that if for every two different vectors x and y, A*x ≠ A*y (where A is a symmetrical matrix), then A is NOT necessarily invertible? In other words, albeit for any two different vectors x and y symmetrical matrix A times one of the vectors is not equal to A times the other, A is not necessarily invertible?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Physical constant is constant even in strong gravitational fields
Montreal VR headset team turns to crowdfunding for Totem
Researchers study vital 'on/off switches' that control when bacteria turn deadly
peripatein
#2
Nov15-12, 05:44 PM
P: 818
Correction, in case A is a square matrix (of order nXn)
Erland
#3
Nov16-12, 06:38 AM
P: 354
If A is an n x n - matrix such that Ax ≠ Ay for all pairs of distinct n-vectors x and y, then A is invertible.

peripatein
#4
Nov16-12, 06:51 AM
P: 818
Inverse matrices question.

Let us examine the following singular matrix:
2 0 4
1 -1 3
0 -1 1

For any two different vectors I claim that that matrix multiplied by the first vector will never be equal to the multiplication of that same matrix by the second vector.
Hence, the matrix does not necessarily have to be singular for the proposition to be valid and hold.
Wouldn't you agree?
Erland
#5
Nov16-12, 06:58 AM
P: 354
Quote Quote by peripatein View Post
Let us examine the following singular matrix:
2 0 4
1 -1 3
0 -1 1

For any two different vectors I claim that that matrix multiplied by the first vector will never be equal to the multiplication of that same matrix by the second vector.
Hence, the matrix does not necessarily have to be singular for the proposition to be valid and hold.
Wouldn't you agree?
Certainly not. As you said, the matrix is singular. This means that there is a nonzero vector x such that Ax=0 (such an x can easily be found if we solve the system Ax=0). On the other hand, A0=0, so Ax=A0, despite that x≠0.
peripatein
#6
Nov16-12, 07:31 AM
P: 818
Okay, so the proposition does not hold in case A is singular, but does that per se guarantee that it holds, for EVERY two different vectors, if A were not singular, i.e. invertible?
Erland
#7
Nov16-12, 08:18 AM
P: 354
Quote Quote by peripatein View Post
Okay, so the proposition does not hold in case A is singular, but does that per se guarantee that it holds, for EVERY two different vectors, if A were not singular, i.e. invertible?
Yes, for if A is invertible and Ax=Ay, then x=Ix=(A-1A)x=A-1(Ax)=A-1(Ay)=(A-1A)y=Iy=y, that is, x=y.

The system Ax=b has a unique solution, x=A-1b, if x is invertible. Otherwise, it has either no solution or infinitely many solutions.
peripatein
#8
Nov16-12, 09:00 AM
P: 818
Thank you very much! :-)
AlephZero
#9
Nov16-12, 03:57 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 7,293
The easy way to see this is false is consider the special case of x ≠ 0 and y = 0.

Ay = 0, so for every x ≠ 0, Ax ≠ 0.

If A is singular, there is a vector x ≠ 0 such that Ax = 0, which is a contradiction. Therefore A is non-singular.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
To prove right inverse implies left inverse for square matrices. Calculus & Beyond Homework 15
Inverse of a sum of matrices Precalculus Mathematics Homework 4
Inverse matrices help please Precalculus Mathematics Homework 9
Having troubles showing A has no inverse or finding the inverse, matrices. Introductory Physics Homework 0
Inverse of Matrices Linear & Abstract Algebra 3