Find Inverse of Matrix Homework Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Telemachus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the inverse of a generic square matrix, specifically an upper triangular matrix. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the necessity of the matrix being square and seeks a method for calculating its inverse.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the conditions under which an inverse exists and discuss the nature of the matrix in question. Some suggest starting with smaller matrices to identify patterns, while others question the original poster's assumptions about the matrix's properties.

Discussion Status

The conversation has included attempts to derive the inverse for specific dimensions, with participants noting discrepancies in the patterns observed. There is ongoing exploration of the implications of the matrix's structure and the validity of the derived inverses.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original matrix is intended to be n x n, and there is a discussion about the clarity of the examples provided for smaller matrices. Some participants express confusion regarding the transition between different matrix sizes.

Telemachus
Messages
820
Reaction score
30
Member warned about posting homework with no effort shown

Homework Statement



I have to find the inverse for this generic matrix (the dimensions are not specified, but I assume its a square matrix, I don't know if that is necessary).

##A=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & \dots & -1 & -1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & -1 & \dots & -1 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & \dots & -1 & -1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

I think there must be a clever and fast way for calculating ##A^{-1}##, but I don't know how to do it.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is necessary that matrix A be square for an inverse to exist.

It's not clear why you need to calculate the inverse. Are you trying to solve a system of linear equations?

In any event, the matrix A is a special kind of triangular matrix called an atomic triangular matrix, and there is a simple and easy method of calculating its inverse.
See this article for the details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
No, it's just an exercise. It asks explicitly to give the inverse Matrix.

Thank you verymuch :)

One detail, it's not an atomic matrix, is just upper triangular.
 
Last edited:
Telemachus said:
No, it's just an exercise. It asks explicitly to give the inverse Matrix.

Thank you verymuch :)

One detail, it's not an atomic matrix, is just upper triangular.
I see that now. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
No problem. I did it my way, I think its okey. I've assumed an ##n \times n## matrix, and found:

##A^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & \dots & n-2 & n-1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & \dots & n-3 & n-2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \dots & n-4 & n-3 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

This is not right, I get trouble after the third column.
 
Last edited:
Telemachus said:
No problem. I did it my way, I think its okey. I've assumed an ##n \times n## matrix, and found:

##A^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & \dots & n-2 & n-1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & \dots & n-3 & n-2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \dots & n-4 & n-3 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

This is not right, I get trouble after the third column.
Instead of jumping right into n x n matrices, start with smaller matrices. I looked at the case with a 3 x 3 matrix, and then with a 4 x 4 matrix. There's a definite pattern that develops.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
Yes, I've tried that way, but wasn't that clear to me. The case for the ##3\times3## is contained in the first 3 rows and columns.

##A_{3\times3}^{-1}
=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

Then for the ##4\times 4##:
##A_{4\times4}^{-1}=
=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 4\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

And for ##5\times5##

##A_{5\times5}^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 8\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 4 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

Then:

##A_{n\times n}^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & \dots & 2^{n-3} & 2^{n-2} \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & \dots & 2^{n-4} & 2^{n-3} \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \dots & 2^{n-5} & 2^{n-4} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##
 
Last edited:
Telemachus said:
Yes, I've tried that way, but wasn't that clear to me. The case for the ##3\times3## is contained in the first 3 rows and columns.

##A_{3\times3}^{-1}
=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

Then for the ##4\times 4##:
##A_{4\times4}^{-1}=
=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 4\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

And for ##5\times5##

##A_{5\times5}^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 8\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 4 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

Then:

##A_{n\times n}^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & \dots & 2^{n-3} & 2^{n-2} \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & \dots & 2^{n-4} & 2^{n-3} \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \dots & 2^{n-5} & 2^{n-4} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

So, was your original matrix
\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{matrix} \right]<br />
not what was intended? When did the switch occur?
 
Ray Vickson said:
So, was your original matrix
\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{matrix} \right]<br />
not what was intended? When did the switch occur?
The original matrix was n X n, not 4 X 4.
 
  • #10
Telemachus said:
And for ##5\times5##

##A_{5\times5}^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 8\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 4 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##

Then:

##A_{n\times n}^{-1}=\left [
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & \dots & 2^{n-3} & 2^{n-2} \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & \dots & 2^{n-4} & 2^{n-3} \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \dots & 2^{n-5} & 2^{n-4} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right]##
Your last matrix isn't following the pattern of the previous ones. Check the first row in the matrix just above.
 
  • #11
Mark44 said:
The original matrix was n X n, not 4 X 4.

Yes, I know. But the OP did some 3x3 and 4x4 examples, and I was just looking at the 4x4 case.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
  • #12
Its done. I did as Mark said, by trying some tractable dimensions, and then generalized it. Thanks.
 
  • #13
Mark44 said:
Your last matrix isn't following the pattern of the previous ones. Check the first row in the matrix just above.
That 3 was just a typo. Sorry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K