# Another question on ranks (linear algebra).

Gold Member
i need to prove that for A square matrix: rank AA^t=rank A.
well rank AA^t<=rank A, but how do i show that rankAA^t>=rankA, i mean i need to show if x is a solution of AA^tx=0 then x is a solution of Ax=0 or of A^tx=0, but how?

Related Calculus and Beyond Homework Help News on Phys.org
You are trying to show that the transpose of an nxn multiplied by itself has the same or less rank? I would use the definition of matrix multiplication, and then transpose, and do Gauss elimination (probably on a 2x2). There may be a more subtle way, but the forceful approach should work.

Homework Helper
i need to prove that for A square matrix: rank AA^t=rank A.
well rank AA^t<=rank A, but how do i show that rankAA^t>=rankA, i mean i need to show if x is a solution of AA^tx=0 then x is a solution of Ax=0 or of A^tx=0, but how?
Let U = {x : AA^t x = 0}, and V = {x : A^t x = 0}. Assume you have already shown that dim V <= dim U (which implies r(A) >= r(AA^t) ), and now assume dim U > dim V (which would imply r(A) > r(AA^t) ) and find a counterexample (it's simple). When you have shown that dim U > dim V can't hold, then dim U = dim V must hold, and hence r(A^t) = r(A) = r(AA^t). Hope this works.

Gold Member
i dont think this would work, cause in ad absurdum proofs you need to get a logical contradiction, not a counter example, perhaps im wrong here and you are right, but i dont think so.

Homework Helper
i dont think this would work, cause in ad absurdum proofs you need to get a logical contradiction, not a counter example, perhaps im wrong here and you are right, but i dont think so.
Actually, that's what's bothering me, too. If we assume it holds for any matrix, could a 'proof by counterexample' work? Guess some of the PF mathematicians should take over on this one.

AlephZero