Proving "AC=CA=0" for 2x2 Matrices

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathmos6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the existence of a non-zero matrix C such that for any 2x2 non-zero singular matrix A, the equations AC=0 and CA=0 hold true. The initial approach involved analyzing the determinant and component-wise multiplication, leading to a system of equations. However, a more efficient method is to utilize the zero eigenvector of the singular matrix A to construct matrix C. This approach simplifies the proof significantly.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of 2x2 matrix operations
  • Knowledge of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
  • Familiarity with singular matrices
  • Basic linear algebra concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of singular matrices and their eigenvectors
  • Learn about matrix multiplication and its implications in linear algebra
  • Explore alternative proofs in linear algebra, particularly involving eigenvalues
  • Investigate the relationship between determinants and matrix invertibility
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in linear algebra, mathematicians interested in matrix theory, and anyone seeking to understand the properties of singular matrices and their implications in mathematical proofs.

Mathmos6
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Apologies, the title messed up - was meant to be 'existence of a C: AC=CA=0 for 2x2 matrices'.

Homework Statement



How would one show 'nicely' that for any 2x2 non-zero matrix A, there exists some 2x2 non-zero matrix C such that AC=CA=0? I can see how to show it by showing that the determinant is '0' for both A and C, so when you multiply out component-wise for AC=0, CA=0, you get 8 equations for the components of A/C and I can show that they can all be paired up as 'equivalent' equations (using ad=bc for both matrices) so in fact you have 4 equations in 4 unknowns - the 4 components of c - so they are solvable, so there does exist some appropriate 'c' - however that's clearly a horrible and slow way of proving the result, can anyone suggest a faster or neater method?

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are trying to prove something that isn't even true. Suppose A is the identity matrix? Or did you mean to specify that A is singular? In that case it has a zero eigenvector. Use that to construct C.
 
Dick said:
You are trying to prove something that isn't even true. Suppose A is the identity matrix? Or did you mean to specify that A is singular? In that case it has a zero eigenvector. Use that to construct C.

Sorry, there were 2 parts to the question phrased in a very unrelated way but obviously they were related, implying that yes, A is singular. Thanks very much for the help :)
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K