Invertible matrix implies linear independent columns

Click For Summary
The discussion confirms that an invertible matrix implies its columns are linearly independent. When a linear transformation represented by a matrix maps R^n to all of R^n, it indicates that the columns form a basis for R^n, which requires them to be independent. If the columns are linearly dependent, they can only span a subset of R^n, making the transformation non-invertible. Therefore, the initial statement is validated through examples and generalization to R^n. The conclusion is that linear independence of columns is a necessary condition for matrix invertibility.
jamesb1
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Is the title statement true?

Was doing some studying today and this caught my eye, haven't looked into linear algebra in quite a while so I'm not sure how it is true :/

Internet couldn't provide any decisive conclusions neither

Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As a very simple example, note that
\begin{pmatrix}a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} \\ a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{33} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}a_{11} \\ a_{21} \\ a_{31}\end{pmatrix}
and similarly for \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} and \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}

That is, applying the linear transformation to the standard basis vectors gives the three columns. The linear transformation is invertible if and only if it maps R3 to all of R3. That is true if and only if those three vectors, the three columns, are a basis for R3 which is, in turn, true if and only if the three vectors are independent.

Generalize that to Rn.
 
  • Like
Likes MathewsMD and jamesb1
But that means you CAN'T have linearly dependent and invertible linear transformations .. no?
 
Last edited:
Yes, If those n vectors, the columns of the n by n matrix, are linearly dependent, they span only a subset of Rn and so the linear transformation is NOT invertible.
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K