For any [itex]A \in \mathcal{R}^{n \times m}[/itex], does [itex]A^T A[/itex] have an inverse?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

From the wikipedia article for transpose ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpose ), I found that [itex]A^T A[/itex] is positive semi-definite (which means for any [itex]x [/itex] which is a column vector, [itex]x^T A^T A x \ge 0[/itex] ). And the Wikipedia article for positive-definite matrix ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_definite_matrix ) , (which means for all [itex]x[/itex] which is a non-zero column vector, [itex]x^T A^T A x \gt 0[/itex] ) says that for any positive definite [itex]A^T A[/itex], [itex]A^T A[/itex] is invertible.

So for any [itex]A \in \mathcal{R}^{n \times m}[/itex], [itex]A^T A[/itex] has an inverse for the case when [itex]x^T A^T A x \gt 0[/itex] for any non-zero column vector [itex]x[/itex], but what about the case when [itex]x^T A^T A x = 0[/itex] ?

Or is there any way that I can get a proof that [itex]A^T A[/itex] has an inverse?

Thanks.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Does [itex]A^T A[/itex] have an inverse?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Does itex itex | Date |
---|---|

B Why does a matrix diagonalise in this case? | Nov 21, 2017 |

B Why does every subfield of Complex number have a copy of Q? | Jun 11, 2017 |

I Does this theorem need that Ker{F}=0? | May 1, 2017 |

I About Lie group product ([itex]U(1)\times U(1)[/itex] ex.) | May 7, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**