Is Matrix C Singular If Matrix B Is Singular?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter loli12
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the singularity of matrices B and C, where C is defined as the product of two matrices A and B (C = AB). Participants are exploring the implications of B being singular on the singularity of C, with references to definitions and theorems related to nonsingularity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests proving that if B is singular, then C must also be singular, referencing a theorem about equivalent conditions for nonsingularity.
  • Another participant notes that if B is singular, there exists a nonzero vector x such that Bx = 0, and questions what Cx would be in that context.
  • A different participant proposes that if C has an inverse, it leads to a contradiction regarding the invertibility of B, implying that C cannot have an inverse.
  • One participant challenges another's understanding of the definitions of singular and nonsingular, suggesting that the definitions may have been confused in the initial approach to the problem.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of B being singular on the product AB, with one participant stating that if Bx = 0, then ABx = 0 follows naturally.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on notation, asking if certain terms refer to transposes of the matrices involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of singularity and nonsingularity. There is no consensus on the best approach to the problem, and some participants appear to have misunderstandings about the definitions involved.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the definitions of singular and nonsingular matrices, as well as the application of theorems related to these concepts. Some assumptions about the properties of matrix multiplication and the implications of singularity are also present but not fully resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students or individuals studying linear algebra, particularly those interested in matrix properties and the implications of singularity in matrix products.

loli12
Please help me on this...!

Let A and B be n x n matrices and let C = AB. Prove that if B is singular then C must be singular.
(The hint they provided is to use this theorem : Equivalent conditions for nonsingularity. 1. A is singular. 2. A x=0 has only the trivial soultion 0. 3. A is row equivalent to I )

Please please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So, if B is singular there is a nonzero x such that Bx=0, and, since for all matrices M0=0, then what is Cx?
 
Oh, I understand now. Thanks~
 
did you try that problem befiore asking for help?
 
of coz i did, but did it in a wrong direction by dealing with the inverses.
 
well, that also works: if C has an inverse then TC=1, say, so that TAB=1, hence B ins invertible, with inverse TA, contradiction, so C cannot posses an inverse.
 
here is why i asked what i did.

you wrote:
C = AB. Prove that if B is singular then C must be singular.
(The hint they provided is to use this theorem : Equivalent conditions for nonsingularity. 1. A is singular. 2. A x=0 has only the trivial solution 0."


AHA! now I see your problem, you have the definitions backwards! this is the definition of non singular, rather than the definition of singualr. you could not possibly do the problem with this incorrect version of the notion of singular. i.e. 1 is not what it should be. was that the rpoblem?

if notm and you really understood that non singular meant that Ax = 0 impleis x =0, then,

1) did you understand that then B singualr means that there is some x which is not zero but with Bx = 0?

If so, then it is almost trivial to see that also (AB)x= A(Bx) = A0 = 0 , hence AB is singular.

I am having difficulty thinking you did not see how go from Bx = 0 to ABx = 0, so I was thinking the problem was elsewhere. Maybe in stating the definition of singular?

If I am wrong, then notice that if you see that Bx = 0,ma nd you are asking yourself if (AB)y everye quals zero for a non zero y, that x is a natural choice. Indeed it is the only choice you have from what is given. As in zenk, you must use whatever you are given.

The reason I ask is it is always helpful to see where you went astray, so as to observe how to avoid it next time.
 
matt grime said:
well, that also works: if C has an inverse then TC=1, say, so that TAB=1, hence B ins invertible, with inverse TA, contradiction, so C cannot posses an inverse.

Do you mean with TC
[tex]C^T,[/tex]
with TAB
[tex]A^{T}B[/tex]
and with TA
[tex]A^T[/tex]?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K