Finding the inverse of an m*n matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter John O' Meara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary
An m by n matrix does not have a true inverse unless it is square. To find an invertible matrix C such that CA is in reduced row-echelon form, one must apply elementary row operations to A, which correspond to multiplying by elementary matrices derived from the identity matrix. The matrix C is the product of these elementary matrices. The process can be successfully applied to specific cases, such as a 2 by 3 matrix, and can be generalized to any m by n matrix. Understanding this method allows for effective row reduction without requiring a traditional inverse.
John O' Meara
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Prove that if A is an mXn matrix, there is an invertible matrix C such that CA is in reduced row-echelon form. I think I know how to get the inverse of a square or an nXn matrix B, i.e., each elementary row operation carried out on B is also carried out on an identity matrix I. [B|I] to give [I|B^-1]. But I have no idea how to do the same to an mXn matrix A in order to find C. In fact are all mXn matrices invertible? I doubt it. I am studing this on my own, so please give a hint or two to get started. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, an "m by n matrix" (without m= n) does not have a true "inverse" and you don't need one. Instead think about how you would row-reduce A. In order that CA exist and C be invertible, C must be an "n by n" square matrix. Every row operation corresponds to an "elementary" matrix- the same row operation applied to the n by n identity matrix. C will be the product of the elementary matrices corresponding to the row operations required to row-reduce A.
 
I tried what you said first on a 2 by 3 matrix A, and I found the matrix C without any problem. I need to extend it now to a the general m by n matrix A. Thanks for your help.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K