Can A2+I=0 for an Odd n x n Matrix A?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of an odd n x n matrix A satisfying the equation A² + I = 0. Participants explore the implications of the matrix being real or complex and the significance of the matrix size being odd.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the conditions under which A² + I = 0 could hold, questioning whether A can be a real or complex matrix. They discuss the determinant properties of matrices and the implications of odd versus even dimensions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants presenting various viewpoints and mathematical reasoning. Some suggest that the oddness of n introduces contradictions for real matrices, while others explore the possibility of complex solutions. There is no consensus yet on the implications of the findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem does not specify whether matrices are real or complex, leading to different interpretations. The oddness of n is highlighted as a critical factor in the discussion of determinants and the existence of solutions.

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Let A be an n x n matrix. Is it possible for A2+I=0 in the case when n is odd?

So A is a 2p+1 x 2p+1; however, I don't see this making a difference to the proof if n is odd or even.

The only way I view A2+I=0 is if A has zero has every elements except when i=j where all a11 to a(2p+1)(2p+1) elements are equal to i=[tex]\sqrt{-1}[/tex].

Other then this observation I have made I am lost on this problem.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Are we talking about real matrices or complex matrices? If complex matrices are allowed then your construction is perfectly valid. If not note that det(-I) = -1 when n is odd (this is where the oddness is required), and therefore we have,
[tex]-1=det(-I) = det(A^2) = det(A)^2[/tex]
Is this possible for a real matrix A?
 


The book doesn't state whether it is speaking of real or complex. But when -I2, we will obtain I+I not 0.
 


Dustinsfl said:
The book doesn't state whether it is speaking of real or complex. But when -I2, we will obtain I+I not 0.

Due to the fact that the condition of being odd is necessary for the real case, but not the complex I would assume the real case is meant. I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence. If it's about my solution, then maybe I should expand a bit. I simply subtracted I to get [itex]A^2 = -I[/itex] and then took the determinant of both sides.
 


I saw it a different way but given your method and how I thought of it ((-I2)+I=0). When is a real number squared to obtain -1? So I am guessing A2+I=0 when n is odd is never unless we consider complex solutions; however, isn't this the same when n is even?
 


Dustinsfl said:
I saw it a different way but given your method and how I thought of it ((-I2)+I=0). When is a real number squared to obtain -1? So I am guessing A2+I=0 when n is odd is never unless we consider complex solutions; however, isn't this the same when n is even?

No because if I is the n x n identity matrix, then -I is the nxn diagonal matrix with -1 as its only diagonal element. Thus the determinant is,
[tex]det(-I) = (-1)^n[/tex]
In the odd case this gives us -1 which as you rightly observed is impossible for real matrices. However in the even case we get 1 and then my equation would simply say
[tex]1 = det(A)^2[/tex]
which is easy to find matrices satisfying. Consider for instance the matrix,
[tex]A = \left[\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ -2 & -1 \end{array} \right][/tex]
which actually satisfy A^2 = -I (if my quick calculations are correct).
 


This only works then when n is even?
 


Dustinsfl said:
This only works then when n is even?

What does "this" refer to? I only made two claims regarding the case where n is even:
1) If n =2, then your statement definitely isn't true (as I provided a counterexample).
2) The proof I gave does not work when n is even because det(I)=1 IF n is even.
As I have mentioned previously det(-I) is the product of the diagonal elements and therefore it's (-1)^n which is -1 if n is odd. Thus if n is odd and A^2 = -I we get:
[tex]-1 = det(A)^2[/tex]
As a real matrix has a real determinant and no real number squared is -1 we get a contradiction.
 


You example matrix A when squared is -I and is a 2 x 2
 
  • #10


Dustinsfl said:
You example matrix A when squared is -I and is a 2 x 2

That just shows that it's possible for A^2 + I =0 when n is even (namely when n is 2) so a proof could never possibly prove it in the even case too.
 
  • #11


That doesn't make sense to me. "That just shows that it's possible...so a proof could never possibly prove it..."

How can you show it and then say it isn't possible?
 
  • #12


Dustinsfl said:
That doesn't make sense to me. "That just shows that it's possible...so a proof could never possibly prove it..."

How can you show it and then say it isn't possible?

I haven't proved it. I presented a proof that says the following:
- (1) If n is odd, then there does not exist a real nxn matrix A such that A^2 + I = 0.
I then gave an example that shows,
- (2) If n is 2, then there does exist a real nxn matrix A such that A^2 + I = 0.
What I simply tried to emphasize is that my proof doesn't work when n is even, and you can't possibly construct a proof that would work when n is even because then it would contradict (2).
 
  • #13


Based on det(A2)=(-1)n couldn't there exist matrices when n is odd?
 
  • #14


Dustinsfl said:
Based on det(A2)=(-1)n couldn't there exist matrices when n is odd?

No. Because imagine that such a matrix A existed. When n is odd [itex](-1)^n=-1[/itex] so,
[tex]det(A^2) = (-1)^n = -1[/tex]
Also since det is multiplicative we have [itex]det(A^2) = det(AA) = det(A)det(A) = det(A)^2[/itex] so we would have,
[tex]det(A)^2 = -1[/tex]
However det(A) is real so in that case we would have a real number whose square is negative, but this is a contradiction so such a matrix can't exist.
 
  • #15


So it isn't true in either case but there are some in the even case? However, if the elements can be complex, it is true for both cases then?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K