Block matrix transformation of specific form

SNicolas
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I am trying to solve the following problem. Is there exist a transformation matrix T, different then the block diagonal, with all blocks the same, such that the form of the matrix A=[A1 A2 ; I 0], is preserved? All blocks of A are in R^{nxn}, I is identity and 0 is zero matrix. In other words, is there exist matrix T (again, not block diagonal with all blocks the same) such that T^{-1}*A*T=B, where B=[B1 B2 ; I 0]?
By intuition, such matrix T does not exist, but I do not know how this can be shown.
If anyone has an idea about this please help. Thank you in advance.

Nicolas
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
So T should be like [t t; t t]?
For the lower blocks of B, this would give the equations 1*t + 0*t = 1 and 1*t + 0*t = 0 => contradiction
 
Thanks for your reply.

Since I am looking for the existence of T, in general it could be
T=[T11 T12 ; T21 T22]. I know that T=[T 0; 0 T] holds, but I want to show that this is the only case. For example T=[T11 0 ; 0 T22] cannot hold, neither the example that you proposed.
 
Ok, I was not sure what "with all blocks the same" means.
Anyway, [t t; t t] matrix would not have an inverse matrix.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top