Is A^n = I_n Enough to Prove Invertibility of A?

  • Thread starter Thread starter auriana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In the discussion, it is established that if an n x n matrix A satisfies the equation A^k = I_n for some positive integer k, then A is indeed invertible. The proof relies on the definition of an inverse matrix, where the existence of a matrix C such that CA = AC = I confirms the invertibility of A. Specifically, A^(k-1) serves as the inverse of A, demonstrating that A is invertible without the need for determinants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix operations and properties
  • Familiarity with the Invertible Matrix Theorem
  • Basic knowledge of matrix multiplication
  • Concept of matrix inverses
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Invertible Matrix Theorem in detail
  • Learn about the properties of matrix multiplication
  • Explore the concept of matrix inverses and their computation
  • Investigate the implications of matrix powers in linear algebra
USEFUL FOR

Students studying linear algebra, particularly those focusing on matrix theory and properties, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to matrix invertibility.

auriana
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let A be an n x n matrix such that Ak = In for some positive integer k.
Prove that A is invertible.

Homework Equations



We have studied inverses of matrices and the Invertible Matrix Theorem, but have not yet reached determinants, just to let you know that determinants should not be used in the solution to this problem.

The Attempt at a Solution



It makes sense to me that A must be invertible in my head. I am not sure how to show this as a proof.

My first thoughts were that I could use the Theorem that states "If A and B are n x n invertible matrices, then so is AB, and the inverse of AB is the product of the inverses of A and B in the reverse order," which leads to the generalization that "The product of n x n invertible matrices is invertible, and the inverse is the product of their inverses in reverse order."

However then I realized that the theorem doesn't state that it goes backwards as well as forwards ( from AB to A and B as opposed to A and B to AB) and I wasn't sure if it was allowed.

Any help would be appreciated - thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A^k=I means A*A^(k-1)=I. Think about that for a minute. What's the definition of inverse?
 
An nxn matrix is invertible if there is an nxn matrix C such that CA = AC = I.

So since A^k is just A*A^(k-1) or you could say its A^(k-1)*A then A^(k-1) is that C matrix and is the inverse of A and A is invertible.

Is that correct?
 
auriana said:
An nxn matrix is invertible if there is an nxn matrix C such that CA = AC = I.

So since A^k is just A*A^(k-1) or you could say its A^(k-1)*A then A^(k-1) is that C matrix and is the inverse of A and A is invertible.

Is that correct?

Sure. A^(k-1) is the inverse of A.
 
Thanks so much =)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K