How can I make singular matrix become nonsingular matrix?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenge of transforming a singular matrix into a nonsingular or orthogonal matrix, particularly in the context of performing a unitary transformation on another matrix. Participants explore theoretical approaches and practical implications of manipulating matrix entries.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to understand how to make a singular matrix orthogonal to perform a unitary transformation on another matrix.
  • Some participants argue that without additional information, it is impossible to make the singular matrix nonsingular.
  • Another participant suggests varying the matrix entries by a small amount as a potential method, but cautions that this may not be valid under certain mathematical conditions.
  • One participant points out that the original matrix is far from orthogonal, as it zeros out multiple dimensions, and proposes an alternative orthogonal matrix that retains some dimensions while modifying others.
  • A later reply acknowledges a mistake in matrix multiplication, indicating a potential misunderstanding in the original query.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on a method to transform the singular matrix into a nonsingular one, with multiple competing views on the feasibility and validity of proposed approaches. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best course of action.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of specific conditions under which matrix manipulation could be valid, as well as the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps involved in transforming the singular matrix.

munirah
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
<< Mentor Note -- thread moved from Homework Help forums to General Math >>[/color]

Good day,

I run coding in Mathematica. But, I get singular matrix A at certain loop. In theory, how can I make matrix A become orthogonal

A=\begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}

because I want to make a unitary transformation on matrix B

B=\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0& 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}

with using definition AB A^{-1} since matrix A is orthogonal matrix.

Please help me to figure out my problem.

Thank you very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Afaict, you haven't given us enough information to enable us to help you.

Your ##A## matrix is singular. Without further information, you can't magically make it nonsingular.
 
strangerep said:
Afaict, you haven't given us enough information to enable us to help you.

Your ##A## matrix is singular. Without further information, you can't magically make it nonsingular.
Thank you for respond. I want to make unitary transformation to the state B. When I run the coding, at certain time, the matrix become singular. How can I solve it hence it will give the result of the trace equal to 1
 
Sorry, but unless you can better understand the meaning of "you haven't given us enough information", I doubt anyone can help you.
 
You could vary the matrix entries by a small (infinitesimal) amount to get it regular or even unitary. But as long as you cannot control the meaning of such a manipulation, your results become worthless. It would be a topological method, and you have to assure beforehand, that this is a valid method to do. Normally, i.e. when considered the pure algebraic or geometrical aspects of a linear equation, this won't be allowed, or to be exact: only within very special conditions. (V. Strassen once considered aspects of the Zariski-topology to prove lower bounds on the complexity of matrix multiplication.)

This means you can't do this, e.g. to get rid of the kernel.
So in the generality you stated your question, the answer has very likely to be: It cannot be done (without smashing the outcome).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: munirah
Your A matrix is so far from orthogonal that it just zeros out 6 of the 8 dimensions. And it zeros out the only dimension where B has a non-zero element. So making A orthogonal would be totally fabricated.

That being said, I will take a wild stab at something. If you are asking for an orthogonal matrix that has the -1s of A but leaves the other dimensions unchanged (instead of zeroed out), then this might be what you want. It just negates and swaps the 3rd and 5th dimensions and it negates and swaps the 4th and 6th dimensions, leaving the other dimensions 1,2,7,8 unchanged.

C =\begin{pmatrix}
1& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: munirah
Thank you for respond it. It check it and yes,I made a mistake from multiply the matrix. Thank you all.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K