Find all 2x2 matrices X such that AX=XA for all 2x2 matrices

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clandry
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrices
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on finding all 2x2 matrices X such that AX = XA for all 2x2 matrices A. The conclusion is that X must take the form X = k*I, where k is any real number and I is the identity matrix. The algebraic derivation shows that for the equations derived from the matrix multiplication, the conditions lead to x = y = 0 and w = z. The participants emphasize the importance of rigorous reasoning over direct assertions in proving the relationships between the matrix elements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix multiplication and properties
  • Familiarity with 2x2 matrices and identity matrix concepts
  • Knowledge of algebraic manipulation and solving linear equations
  • Experience with echelon reduction techniques in linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of commutative matrices in linear algebra
  • Learn about eigenvalues and eigenvectors of matrices
  • Explore the concept of matrix similarity and diagonalization
  • Investigate the use of echelon forms in solving systems of linear equations
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in linear algebra, mathematicians interested in matrix theory, and anyone seeking to understand the commutativity of matrices.

Clandry
Messages
74
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find all 2x2 matrices X such that AX=XA for all 2x2 matrices

The Attempt at a Solution


Let A =
a b
c d

and X =
w x
y z

Then AX = XA ==>

aw+by=wa+xc ...(1)
ax+bz=wb+xd ...(2)
cw+dy=ya+zc ...(3)
cx+dz=yb+zd ...(4)

(1) ==> by = xc, which holds for all b and c only if x=y=0.
(2) ==> bz = wb, which hods for all b only if z=w.
(3) ==> w=z
(4) ==> x=y=0

So the answer is x=y=0, and w=z. That is, X = k*I with k being any real number and I is the identity matrix.
How does this look?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I see the algebra for (1) ... not the others. Perhaps you should be more explicit.
But your result works. Does k have to be a real number?
 
Hello. Thank you for the reply. The algebra for (2)-(4) were based on the results of (1).

For (2), we have ax+bz=wb+xd; in (1) we decided that x=y=0, thus this expression becomes bz=wb
For (3), if x=y=0, then w=z
For (4), we have cx+dz=yb+zd=> xc=yb, thus x=y=0.I am not too confident with what I did for part 1. "(1) ==> by = xc, which holds for all b and c only if x=y=0. "
Alternatively, could I have also said "(1) ==> by = xc, which holds for all x and y only if b=c=0. "
 
I think I see what you mean. It kinda looks like you are saying that x=y=0 as a strong assertion - you got there by reason more than algebra - and that feels weak right?

I am not too confident with what I did for part 1. "(1) ==> by = xc, which holds for all b and c only if x=y=0. "
Alternatively, could I have also said "(1) ==> by = xc, which holds for all x and y only if b=c=0. "
In the second case, then you have just observed that for any A where b=c=0, the values of x and y in X don't matter.
But your problem was to find the values of x and y (and the rest) that work when b and c are other numbers too.

If you want a more rigorous approach, that depends less on direct reasoning, then try simplifying each line independently, building a matrix of coefficients, then using echelon reduction to arrive at the relationships.
 
Ah I see what you are saying. I had forgotten the essence of the problem statement.

Regarding the rigorous approach, it seems there are too many unknowns for that to come out nicely?
 
No, it just means the solution is not unique...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K