Matrix Equation: Finding Non-Zero Solution for AX + XA = 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Appleton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a non-zero 2x2 matrix X that satisfies the equation AX + XA = 0, where A is defined as a 2x2 matrix with non-zero entries. Participants explore the implications of two conditions: (a) when the trace of A (a + d) equals zero, leading to a solution dependent on two parameters, and (b) when the determinant (ad - bc) equals zero, resulting in a solution dependent on one parameter.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants attempt to derive a system of equations from the matrix equation and explore various algebraic manipulations. Some express X in terms of its components and substitute to simplify the equations, while others consider the determinant of the resulting matrix as a means to find non-trivial solutions.

Discussion Status

Multiple approaches are being explored, including row reduction and Gaussian elimination. Some participants have provided hints and suggestions for manipulating the equations, while others express uncertainty about their progress. There is no explicit consensus on a method, but productive dialogue continues regarding the implications of the conditions on the matrix A.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note constraints related to their current understanding of matrix operations, particularly regarding determinants and higher-dimensional matrices. The discussion reflects a range of familiarity with the concepts involved.

Appleton
Messages
91
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let A be the matrix <br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}a&amp;b\\c&amp;d\end{array}\right), where no one of a, b, c, d is zero.
It is required to find the non-zero 2x2 matrix X such that AX + XA = 0, where 0 is the zero 2x2 matrix. Prove that either
(a) a + d = 0, in which case the general solution for X depends on two parameters, or
(b) ad - bc = 0, in which case the general solution for X depends on one parameter.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Let X = <br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1&amp;x_2\\x_3&amp;x_4\end{array}\right)

From AX + XA = 0 I can obtain the following system of equations

<br /> 2ax_1 + bx_3 + cx_2 = 0\\<br /> 2dx_4 + bx_3 + cx_2 = 0\\<br /> (a+d)x_3 + (x_1+x_4)c = 0\\<br /> (a+d)x_2 + (x_1+x_4)b = 0\\<br />

By subtracting the second equation from the first I can derive

<br /> x_4 = \frac{a}{d}x_1\\<br />

Plugging this into the fourth equation I can derive the following:

<br /> (a+d)x_2+ b(x_1 + \frac{a}{d}x_1) =0\\<br /> (a+d)x_2+ bx_1\frac{a+d}{d}=0\\<br /> (a+d)(x_2+\frac{b}{d}x_1)=0\\<br />

Which suggests a+d=0, the first part of question (a).

For the second part of question (a) I replace d with -a in A and derive the following system of equations

<br /> 2ax_1 + bx_3 + cx_2 = 0\\<br /> -2ax_4 + bx_3 + cx_2 = 0\\<br /> (x_1+x_4)c = 0\\<br /> (x_1+x_4)b = 0\\<br />

From these equations, and bearing in mind that a, b, c , d ≠ 0, I can express x_3<br /> and x_4 in terms of
x_1 and x_2

<br /> x_4 = -x_1\\<br /> x_3=-\frac{2ax_1+cx_2}{b}<br />

So

X = <br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1&amp;x_2\\-\frac{2ax_1+cx_2}{b}&amp;-x_1\end{array}\right)

Where X is dependent on two parameters (if we ignore a, c and b which is what I presume the question is intending)

With question (b) I am stuck trying to transform (x_2+\frac{b}{d}x_1)<br /> into ad - bc. I can see that
ad - bc is the determinant of A and wondered whether a geometric approach to the question might be appropriate, however I haven't made any headway on either front.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Appleton said:

Homework Statement


Let A be the matrix <br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}a&amp;b\\c&amp;d\end{array}\right), where no one of a, b, c, d is zero.
It is required to find the non-zero 2x2 matrix X such that AX + XA = 0, where 0 is the zero 2x2 matrix. Prove that either
(a) a + d = 0, in which case the general solution for X depends on two parameters, or
(b) ad - bc = 0, in which case the general solution for X depends on one parameter.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Let X = <br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1&amp;x_2\\x_3&amp;x_4\end{array}\right)

From AX + XA = 0 I can obtain the following system of equations

<br /> 2ax_1 + bx_3 + cx_2 = 0\\<br /> 2dx_4 + bx_3 + cx_2 = 0\\<br /> (a+d)x_3 + (x_1+x_4)c = 0\\<br /> (a+d)x_2 + (x_1+x_4)b = 0\\<br />
If you write this system in matrix form, you have
$$\begin{pmatrix} 2a & c & b & 0 \\ 0 & c & b & 2d \\ c & 0 & a+d & c \\ b & a+d & 0 & b \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_3 \\ x_4 \end{pmatrix} = 0.$$ For there to be a non-trivial solution, the determinant of the matrix must vanish. Perhaps that will help.
 
Thanks for your replies. My book has not yet introduced me to 4x4 matrices and how to find their determinants (I have however just looked this up and can see that it's just an extension of the 3x3 method, but my book doesn't know I've done this), so I was rather hoping there would be an approach that deployed more basic mathematical tools.
 
You don't need to find the determinant. Try row-reducing the matrix.
 
Unfortunately the answer to this problem is still eluding me. I have tried adding/subtracting rows and columns to try and generate 3 zeros in one column or row so that I can reduce the problem to calculating a 3x3 determinent, but to no avail. At the risk of parading my stupidity would it be possible for you to provide another clue?
 
Don't bother with the determinant. Can you reduce the matrix to the form below?
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{d}{a} \\
0 & 1 & \frac{b}{c} & \frac{2 d}{c} \\
0 & 0 & \frac{a+d}{c} & \frac{a+d}{a} \\
0 & \frac{a+d}{b} & 0 & \frac{a+d}{a} \\
\end{pmatrix} Remember ##a##, ##b##, and ##c## are assumed to be non-zero.
 
Last edited:
Appleton said:
Thanks for your replies. My book has not yet introduced me to 4x4 matrices and how to find their determinants (I have however just looked this up and can see that it's just an extension of the 3x3 method, but my book doesn't know I've done this), so I was rather hoping there would be an approach that deployed more basic mathematical tools.

Instead of applying (possibly poorly-understood) row operations, just apply Gaussian elimination, the way you first learned in school.

So, using the equations exactly as you wrote them in Post #1, use equation 1 to express ##x_1## in terms of ##x_2, x_3,x_4##. Substitute that formula for ##x_1## into equations 2-4, giving new equations 2-4 that involve ##x_2, x_3, x_4## only. Now use your new equation 2 to express ##x_2## in terms of ##x_3, x_4##, and substitute that formula for ##x_2## into your new equations 3, 4. That gives newer, equations 3 and 4 that involve ##x_3, x_4## only. Now you should be able to see how ##a+d = 0## vs. ##a+d \neq 0## comes into play. In particular, if ##a+d \neq 0## you can carry out one more elimination step, expressing ##x_3## in terms of ##x_4##. In that case, you will have managed to express ##x_1,x_2,x_3## all in terms of ##x_4##. In the case ##a+d = 0## you are prevented from doing that---so that fact tells you something useful.
 
Copied from a misplaced post in another thread
Appleton said:
Thanks for your replies, I investigated both approaches. Adopting Vela's technique I was able to transform the matrix to the suggested form and found that when a+d is not equal to 0
<br /> X = \left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1&amp;\frac{bc-2ad}{cd}x_1\\-\frac{c}{d}x_1&amp;\frac{a}{d}x_1\end{array}\right) (I think)

However, I couldn't see how ad-bc = 0 using this method.

With regard to Ray's technique, I found out through a bit of online research that the system is a dependent system when a+d = 0. This is not a concept I am familiar with, but the implication seems to be that the 4 dimensional surfaces described by the equations are coplanar. I'm guessing that, since a matrix whose determinant is 0 eliminates area, one implies the other.
 
  • #10
It appears you didn't solve for ##x_4## correctly when ##a+d \ne 0##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K