MHB Is Matrix A Invertible Given (AB)C Equals the Identity Matrix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the equation (AB)C = I implies that matrix A is invertible. It is established that while A has a right inverse BC, proving A's invertibility requires demonstrating that BC also serves as a left inverse. The associative property of matrix multiplication allows for rearranging the equation, but the commutative property does not apply. To conclusively show A is invertible, both a right and left inverse must be established, or alternatively, one can use determinants to prove that det(A) ≠ 0. Overall, the relationship between A, B, and C is complex, requiring careful consideration of matrix properties.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all

I am told that (AB)C=I and I am asked if that means A is invertible.
I also knows that A+A^t is defined (irrelevant as far as I understand) and that A has 3 rows, also irrelevant.

what I did is:

(AB)C=A(BC)=I

and then BC is the inverse of A. But according to the definition that ain't sufficient, is it ? Do I need also to show that (BC)A=I ? If so, how ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
Hello all

I am told that (AB)C=I and I am asked if that means A is invertible.
I also knows that A+A^t is defined (irrelevant as far as I understand) and that A has 3 rows, also irrelevant.

what I did is:

(AB)C=A(BC)=I

and then BC is the inverse of A. But according to the definition that ain't sufficient, is it ? Do I need also to show that (BC)A=I ? If so, how ?

Because for the product of matrices the associative property holds, it will be ...

$\displaystyle (A \cdot B) \cdot C = I \implies A \cdot (B \cdot C) = I\ (1)$

The commutative property are however not true in general, so that ...

$\displaystyle A \cdot (B \cdot C) \ne (B \cdot C) \cdot A\ (2)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
so it could be invertible and it could be not invertible, I have no way to proof one way or another by using algebra only.
 
You know that A has a right inverse BC, and you want to show that BC is also a left inverse for A. This is true, but not that easy to prove. If you know about determinants, the best way to show that A is invertible is to use the fact that this is equivalent to the condition $\det(A)\ne0.$
 
Right, so in order to show that A is invertible, I MUST show that is has both a right inverse AND a left inverse ?
 
Yankel said:
Right, so in order to show that A is invertible, I MUST show that is has both a right inverse AND a left inverse ?

It suffices to make deductions about the determinants of $A$, $(BC)$, and $I$, using that for any finite square matrices $P$ and $Q$, we have:
$$\det(PQ)=\det P \cdot \det Q$$

Note that it is relevant that $A+A^t$ is defined and that $A$ has 3 rows, since it implies that A is a finite, square matrix.
Furthermore, the fact that $A(BC)=I$, implies that $(BC)$ is also a square matrix of the same dimensions as $A$.
You need this, because otherwise the determinants would not be defined.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
18K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K