Formula for the inverse problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter danielI
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Inverse
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the invertibility of the matrix expression I - A given that A^2 = 0. Participants explore various mathematical concepts related to linear transformations and matrix theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest using determinants to show that I - A is invertible, while others propose alternative methods, such as Taylor series and properties of linear transformations. Questions about the kernel of the transformation are also raised.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with different approaches to the problem, with some providing hints and others questioning assumptions. There is a mix of suggestions regarding the use of series expansions and properties of matrices, indicating a productive exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of constraints related to the properties of A, specifically that A^2 = 0, which influences the discussion on convergence and the nature of the inverse. Additionally, the concept of the kernel is being examined in the context of invertibility.

danielI
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
If [tex]A^2 = 0[/tex], show that [tex]I - A[/tex] is invertible.

So we know that [tex]\det(A^2) = (\det A)^2 = \det 0 \Leftrightarrow \det A = 0[/tex]

We should now show that [tex]\det(I-A) \not= 0[/tex].

But I'm not sure how to do that. Could someone kick me in the right directon?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no need for determinants here. There is a very simply formula for the inverse of I - A (when A^2 = 0). Any further hints will practically give away the entire solution, but (I - A)^(-1) "looks" a lot like I - A...
 
forget matrices for one second, think taylor series

what is (1-x)^{-1} as a series expansion when |x|<1?

This can be suitably altered to tell us what the inverse of 1-A is for any A up to some convergence questions. Since A^2=0 these convergence questions vanish entirely as they do if instead of A^2=0 we had A^r=0

obviously since you have been given r=2 i could be using something, talyor series, you've never heard of, and instead you are supposed to use something that, up to making a sign change, is what Muzza said (difference of two squares, anyone?)
 
and you don't have to be clever. try showing I-A has no kernel. this suffices at least in finite dimensions.
 
http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math101/notes/series/taylor.html

[tex](I-A)^{-1}=(I+A)\text{, since }A^n=A^2\cdot A^{n-2} = 0\cdot A^{n-2}=0[/tex]

[tex](I - A)(I + A) = II + IA - AI - AA = I + A - A - 0 = I[/tex]
[tex](I + A)(I - A) = II - IA + AI - AA = I - A + A - 0 = I[/tex]

Now when I've solved this problem I would like to see your solutions (if it's different). It's allways good to learn more ways to solve a problem :smile:

mathwonk: exactly what do you mean by 'kernel'?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The "kernel" of a linear transformation (or any function, for that matter) is the subset of the domain that get taken to 0: {x| f(x)= 0}. If a function is invertible, it must be one-to-one and (since for any f a linear transformation, f(0)=0) so the kernel of an invertible linear transformation can only be {0}.
 
Mathwonk's solution goes a little like this:

suppose that (1-A)x=0, that is x is in the kernel, then that is the same as x=Ax, but now apply A to both sides, what happens? Now, if U and V are zero what is U+V?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K