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

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the invertibility of an n x n matrix A given that A raised to a positive integer k equals the identity matrix I_n. The context is within the study of matrix inverses and the Invertible Matrix Theorem, with a specific restriction against using determinants.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reason through the implications of A^k = I_n and considers relevant theorems about invertible matrices. Some participants question the backward application of theorems regarding matrix products and inverses. Others suggest that A^(k-1) could serve as the inverse of A based on the definition of invertibility.

Discussion Status

The discussion is exploring the relationship between the powers of matrix A and its invertibility. Some participants have offered guidance on how to interpret A^k = I_n in terms of the definition of an inverse, and there seems to be a productive exchange of ideas regarding the implications of the theorem on matrix products.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted the restriction against using determinants in their reasoning, which may influence the approaches taken in the discussion.

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
6K
  • · 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
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K