No problem, glad I could help! Good luck with your proof.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around whether two matrices A and B can exist such that A*B results in the zero matrix while B*A does not. One participant suggests that the product A*B equals the zero matrix if the corresponding row vector of A and column vector of B are orthogonal. They provide specific matrices A and B as examples to illustrate their point. After some deliberation, they express gratitude for the assistance in developing their proof. The conversation highlights the complexity of matrix multiplication and orthogonality in linear algebra.
vsage
Are there two matrices A and B such that A*B is the zero matrix but B*A is not?

I'm leaning toward no.. I'm composing my solution right now.

Bah the only thing I can come up with is that if any row of A can be treated as a vector and any column of row B can be treated as a vector, for element (i, j) in the matrix AB will be 0 iff the vector of row i in A and column j in B are orthogonal (dot product is 0). I can't get much further right now :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
A=
<br /> \left\{ <br /> \begin{array}{ccc} <br /> 1 &amp; 1 \\ <br /> 0 &amp; 0 <br /> \end{array} <br /> \right\} <br />

B=
<br /> \left\{ <br /> \begin{array}{ccc} <br /> 1 &amp; 1 \\ <br /> -1 &amp; -1 <br /> \end{array} <br /> \right\} <br />

-- AI
 
TenaliRaman said:
A=
<br /> \left\{ <br /> \begin{array}{ccc} <br /> 1 &amp; 1 \\ <br /> 0 &amp; 0 <br /> \end{array} <br /> \right\} <br />

B=
<br /> \left\{ <br /> \begin{array}{ccc} <br /> 1 &amp; 1 \\ <br /> -1 &amp; -1 <br /> \end{array} <br /> \right\} <br />

-- AI

Thanks. Although the question did just originally ask what is an example after many hours of scratching my head I made a proof that would satisfy that. Thank you for a template to go by though it facilitated the process a little.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top