A question in prooving invertion

  • Thread starter Thread starter transgalactic
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the invertibility of a linear operator represented by the matrix transformation P, which swaps rows and columns. The user confirmed that the operator can indeed be its own inverse, as demonstrated by the identity operator's properties. The conclusion is that the operator's behavior, where applying it twice returns the original matrix, is valid and expected. The discussion highlights that reasoning through the operator's actions can be sufficient without relying solely on basis representation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear operators and their properties
  • Familiarity with matrix transformations
  • Knowledge of matrix inversion concepts
  • Basic linear algebra principles
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of linear operators in detail
  • Learn about matrix transformations and their effects on data
  • Explore the concept of involutory matrices (matrices that are their own inverses)
  • Investigate the implications of swapping rows and columns in matrix operations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those focusing on linear algebra, matrix theory, and operators. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of matrix transformations and their invertibility.

transgalactic
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
0
http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aaauo9.jpg

i need to proove that this operator is invertable
i solved it by putting a standart basis and findind that each line in the matrix
is independent.

is it ok??

is there any easier way to slve it??

when i tried to find the invert of this operator i got the same matrix as before
very weird result
is that ok??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\c & d\end{array}\right]\right)= \left[\begin{array}{cc}d & c \\ b & a\end{array}\right]
when i tried to find the invert of this operator i got the same matrix as before
very weird result
is that ok??
Yes, that's okay. The multiplicative inverse of 1 is 1 and the multiplicative inverse of -1 is -1. The inverse of the identity operator is obviously the indentity operator. It's quite possible for for a linear operator to be its own inverse.

And it isn't necessary to write this in terms of a basis. You can "reason" it out:

We can think of P as doing two things to a matrix: 1) Swap the columns so that
\left[\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\c & d\end{array}\right]
becomes
\left[\begin{array}{cc}b & a \\d & c\end{array}\right]
Then Swap rows so that becomes
\left[\begin{array}{cc}d & c \\b & a\end{array}\right]

The inverse must do just the opposite, going back from
\left[\begin{array}{cc}d & c \\b & a\end{array}\right]
to
\left[\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\c & d\end{array}\right]

But the inverse (opposite) of "swap the rows" is "swap the rows" and the inverse of "swap the columns" is "swap the columns"!
What is
P\left(P\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\c & d\end{array}\right]\right)\right)
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
18K