- #1

pyroknife

- 613

- 3

A^T = −A. Show that if A is skew-symmetric and

n is an odd positive integer, then A is not

invertible.

When you do this proof, is it necessary to prove that the determinant of A transpose = determinant of -A?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter pyroknife
- Start date

- #1

pyroknife

- 613

- 3

A^T = −A. Show that if A is skew-symmetric and

n is an odd positive integer, then A is not

invertible.

When you do this proof, is it necessary to prove that the determinant of A transpose = determinant of -A?

- #2

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

A^T = −A. Show that if A is skew-symmetric and

n is an odd positive integer, then A is not

invertible.

When you do this proof, is it necessary to prove that the determinant of A transpose = determinant of -A?

Why would you need to prove that? You are given that A^T=(-A), so it's pretty obvious that det(A^T)=det(-A). For a general matrix, what's the relation between det(A) and det(A^T)??

- #3

gabbagabbahey

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 5,002

- 7

A^T = −A. Show that if A is skew-symmetric and

n is an odd positive integer, then A is not

invertible.

When you do this proof, is it necessary to prove that the determinant of A transpose = determinant of -A?

No, if [itex]A=B[/itex], then clearly [itex]\det(A)=\det(B)[/itex] (if you do any operation on [itex]A[/itex], then the result must be the same as doing that operation on [itex]B[/itex], otherwise the two are not equal.

- #4

pyroknife

- 613

- 3

Why would you need to prove that? You are given that A^T=(-A), so it's pretty obvious that det(A^T)=det(-A). For a general matrix, what's the relation between det(A) and det(A^T)??

The same. I saw someone (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090317163121AAkzR4p) do it on yahoo answers in a really complicated way and he proved that those 2 are equal so it got me confused. Like you said you're given one matrix EQUAL to another so I don't understand why that user proved it.

- #5

pyroknife

- 613

- 3

Do you guys know of any sites that have problems where I can get some practice with matrix proofs?

- #6

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

Do you guys know of any sites that have problems where I can get some practice with matrix proofs?

Why don't you start with this one? It's pretty easy. Answer my first question and then tell me what the relation is between det(-A) and det(A).

- #7

pyroknife

- 613

- 3

Why don't you start with this one? It's pretty easy. Answer my first question and then tell me what the relation is between det(-A) and det(A).

I said it was the same in my other post.

det(-A) = (-1)^n * det(A)

using the concept where A is an nxn matrix and a is a constant. Det (-aA) = -a^n * det(A)

This is how I attempted to do this problem:

det(A^T)=det(-A)=det(A)

since n is odd det(-A) = -det(A)

-det(A)=det(A)

0 is the the only # where the negative of itself is itself.

That last part is seemingly easy, but it took me a while to think in that direction.

- #8

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

I said it was the same in my other post.

det(-A) = (-1)^n * det(A)

using the concept where A is an nxn matrix and a is a constant. Det (-aA) = -a^n * det(A)

This is how I attempted to do this problem:

det(A^T)=det(-A)=det(A)

since n is odd det(-A) = -det(A)

-det(A)=det(A)

0 is the the only # where the negative of itself is itself.

That last part is seemingly easy, but it took me a while to think in that direction.

Ah, ok. That's what "The same" meant. You've got the proof in your head just fine. Your statement has a funny looking det(-A)=det(A) statement. I assume that's a typo. Actually I see what you mean by that. You mean det(A^T)=det(A) (because it's true for any matrix) and det(A^T)=det(-A) (because the matrix is skew). Putting all of that in one line without giving reasons is confusing and bad style.

Last edited:

- #9

pyroknife

- 613

- 3

Ah, ok. That's what "The same" meant. You've got the proof in your head just fine. Your statement has a funny looking det(-A)=det(A) statement. I assume that's a typo. Actually I see what you mean by that. You mean det(A^T)=det(A) (because it's true for any matrix) and det(A^T)=det(-A) (because the matrix is skew). Putting all of that in one line without giving reasons is confusing and bad style.

Oh yeah. I think it would've been better if I had it as det(A)=det(A^t)=det(-A) or in separate lines like you said.

Do you know of any sites where I can get more practice with proofs?

- #10

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

Oh yeah. I think it would've been better if I had it as det(A)=det(A^t)=det(-A) or in separate lines like you said.

Do you know of any sites where I can get more practice with proofs?

Not giving reasons for statements is pretty bad. Putting a bunch of equalities in the same line that have different reasons for being true is asking trouble. You are asking whoever is reading the proof to guess what you are thinking. Don't do it. Make it as clear on paper as it is in your head. Sorry, don't know any practice proof sites.

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 982

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 993

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 852

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K