Can Singular Matrices Satisfy A^3 = A^2 but A^2 ≠ A?

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a 2x2 matrix A that satisfies the conditions A^3 = A^2 while also ensuring that A^2 ≠ A. Participants are exploring the implications of these conditions within the context of linear algebra and matrix theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to define a general form for the matrix A and expresses difficulty in solving the resulting equations. Some participants question the terminology used, specifically the term "metrics" instead of "matrix." Others suggest that the properties of singular matrices may play a crucial role in satisfying the conditions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the nature of singular matrices and their implications for the problem. There is a suggestion that non-singular matrices cannot meet both requirements, and one participant proposes a specific form for the matrix A to explore further. The conversation indicates a productive exploration of potential solutions and mathematical properties without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in solving the equations derived from the matrix conditions, and the discussion highlights the challenge of finding a suitable example that meets all specified criteria.

angrywar
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


the question is :
Get an example of metrics M2X2 that:
A^2 doest equal A but A^3 equals A^2

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to put matrices A equals :
a b
c d

and tried to solve it , but I get to 4 equations with 4 parameters and I don't know how to solve it , is there any easier way ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Metrics"? Do you mean matrix?

If [itex]A^3= A^2[/itex] then [itex]A^3- A^2= A(A^2- A)= 0[/itex].
The requirement that [itex]A^2\ne A[/itex] means that [itex]A^2- A\ne 0[/itex]. Now, it does NOT follow that A= 0 ([itex]0^2= 0[/itex] so A= 0 is not a solution)- the ring of matrices has "0 divisors" But that does mean that A cannot be invertible.
 
yes i ment matrix

i didnt get what u mean by :
"the ring of matrices has "0 divisors""
 
First prove that both requirements can't be satisfied by a non-singular matrix.

Once you know that A is singular, for a 2x2 this means that one of the columns is a scalar multiple of the other. So A will be of the form

[tex]A = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> a & \kappa b \\<br /> a & \kappa b \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)[/tex]

EDIT: not sure why the LaTeX isn't working. The matrix should be
(a) (κ a)
(b) (κ b)Using this assumption calculate A^3-A^2. If this quantity is 0, then in particular the (1,1) component must be 0. This gives you a polynomial which you can solve for a in terms of b (treat [itex]\kappa[/itex] as a parameter). You'll have up to 3 solutions since the polynomial can be at most cubic. Just plug them in and see if any satisfy all the requirements. If so you have your example (in fact you have a family of examples since κ can probably be almost anything), if not you've basically proven that an example doesn't exist for 2x2 matrices.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K