- #1

- 96

- 1

Secondly, I read that in order for A to have a non-trivial kernel, we need detA=0. Why is this so?

- Thread starter gentsagree
- Start date

- #1

- 96

- 1

Secondly, I read that in order for A to have a non-trivial kernel, we need detA=0. Why is this so?

- #2

jgens

Gold Member

- 1,581

- 50

This is more or less correct. I am not sure what the proper terminology is here, but it might be more proper to say something like:I read that an equation of the form Ax=0 has a solution iff the matrix A has non-trivial Kernel, which makes sense as if A had trivial kernel then x would be trivial as well, meaning that only the x={0} solution would exist, right?

An equation of the form Ax = 0 has a *non-trivial* solution if and only if the matrix A has non-trivial kernel.

I never really learned matrix algebra so maybe the x = 0 solution does not count or something, but it seems like you should add the non-trivial caveat for clarity.

There are several ways to look at this. Perhaps the simplest (although slightly unenlightening) way to see this is what follows: The determinant is multiplicative, so if A is invertible, then (det A)(det ASecondly, I read that in order for A to have a non-trivial kernel, we need detA=0. Why is this so?

- #3

- 96

- 1

Although it makes sense, what you are saying sounds like det A≠0, whereas I was looking for det A=0.The determinant is multiplicative, so if A is invertible, then (det A)(det A^{-1}) = 1 and this guarantees that neither of those guys can be zero. On the other hand if det A ≠ 0 then one can construct an inverse matrix. Just multiply the adjugate by (det A)^{-1}and you have your inverse.

How does your observation relate to my question about "requiring det A=0 in order to have a non-trivial kernel"?

- #4

jgens

Gold Member

- 1,581

- 50

What happens in the det A = 0 case can be deduced from the det A ≠ 0 case. If you put some thought into, then I am sure you can figure it out.Although it makes sense, what you are saying sounds like det A≠0, whereas I was looking for det A=0.

It relates in a fairly obvious way.How does your observation relate to my question about "requiring det A=0 in order to have a non-trivial kernel"?

- #5

AlephZero

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 6,994

- 291

So, if Ax = 0 and x ≠ 0, the column vectors of A are linearly dependent, and therefore det A = 0.

- #6

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 956

Actually this is NOT true. "Ax= 0"I read that an equation of the form Ax=0 has a solution iff the matrix A has non-trivial Kernel, which makes sense as if A had trivial kernel then x would be trivial as well, meaning that only the x={0} solution would exist, right?

Matrix A has inverse if an only if it's determinant is non-0. If A has an inverse then we can multiply both sides of Ax= 0 by it to get [itex]A^{-1}Ax= A^{-1}0[/itex] of [itex]x= 0[/itex] so the kerne is trivial, consisting only of 0.Secondly, I read that in order for A to have a non-trivial kernel, we need detA=0. Why is this so?

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 6K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 7K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 9K