1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

On block matrix

  1. Sep 24, 2014 #1
    if A B C D are nxn matrices such that rank(A)=rank([A B])=n ([A B] : 2nx2n matrix)
    [C D] [C D]

    we want to show that D=CA‑¹B (A‑¹: inverse matrix of A)

    this is what i have tried:
    [In 0] [A B] = [A B ] (here, In refers to identity nxn matrix)
    [-CA‑¹ In] [C D] [0 -CA‑¹B+D]

    det( [In 0] [A B] ) = det ( [A B ] )
    [-CA‑¹ In] [C D] [0 -CA‑¹B+D]

    det( [In 0] ) det( [A B] ) = det ([A B ] )
    [-CA‑¹ In] [C D] [0 -CA‑¹B+D]

    by property of determinant of block matrix,

    det(In)det(In)det( [A B] ) = det(A)det(CA‑¹B+D)
    [C D]

    since A is invertible and [A B] is not invertible, their determinents are not zero and zero respectively
    [C D]

    Thus, det(CA‑¹B+D)=0

    If i can show that CA‑¹B+D=0, then my proof ends.
    But i can't show this.

    can anyone show that CA‑¹B+D=0?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 24, 2014 #2

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't understand the question. What do you mean by [A B] for example? You said that it's 2n×2n, but not how it's related to A and B. And if it's 2n×2n, then how are you multiplying it by an n×n matrix? ("In" is a very confusing notation by the way).
     
  4. Sep 24, 2014 #3

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    More questions. Maybe I am missing something. I assume that [A B] is just the nx2n matrix adjoining columns of A and B. But what does "[C D] [C D]" in line 2 say about C and D? And why are there other miscellaneous lines of "[C D]" scattered around? And I don't what "ln" means.
     
  5. Sep 24, 2014 #4

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He explained that one. It's an I, not an l, and In is his notation for the n×n identity matrix.
     
  6. Sep 24, 2014 #5
    1
     
  7. Sep 24, 2014 #6
    Ok i have rewritten my question since it looks very confusing
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Sep 24, 2014 #7
    I have rewritten my question
     

    Attached Files:

    • 333.JPG
      333.JPG
      File size:
      33.1 KB
      Views:
      67
  9. Sep 24, 2014 #8
    I have rewritten my question Fredrik!
     

    Attached Files:

    • 333.JPG
      333.JPG
      File size:
      33.1 KB
      Views:
      66
  10. Sep 25, 2014 #9

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The calculation looks correct, but I don't understand why you're doing it. You still haven't stated the problem in a way that makes sense. In particular, you haven't said anything to indicate that C and D are anything but arbitrary n×n matrices.
     
  11. Sep 25, 2014 #10
    I want to show that det(D-CA‑¹B )=0 implies D-CA‑¹B=0
    But i dont know how. Or are there any other ways?
     
  12. Sep 25, 2014 #11

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But you haven't given any conditions on C and D. What if for example ##A=I## and ##B=0##? Then ##D-CA^{-1}B=D##. So you're trying to prove that the arbitrary(???) matrix D is zero.
     
  13. Sep 25, 2014 #12

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The statement that the rank of the full matrix [itex]\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} A&B\\ C&D \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)[/itex]is the same as the rank of A says something about C and D

    P.S. Seems like it takes forever now for the LaTex to be interpreted. It did previews immediately, but it looks like the post will never be converted.
     
  14. Sep 25, 2014 #13

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The statement in post #1 just says that A and [A B] both have rank n. I don't see a way to interpret the post as saying anything about C or D.
     
  15. Sep 25, 2014 #14

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes. You have to look at the PDF attachment in a later post to see the correctly formatted problem statement. In the original post, the [C D] was left justified and should have been the lower half of the [A B]. It should have been
    [itex]\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} A&B\\ C&D \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)[/itex]
     
  16. Sep 25, 2014 #15

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You mean the JPEG that was attached to three different posts? There's no problem statement in it. There's just a definition of [A B] and some calculations that may or may not be relevant to the problem. It's impossible to tell without a problem statement.

    OK, I see now, by quoting post #1, that the OP intended [C D] to be the lower half and [A B] the upper half. So now the only problem is that I've done so much work trying to decode what he meant that I don't want to look at this problem anymore.
     
  17. Sep 26, 2014 #16
    you've got any idea on solving the problem?
     
  18. Sep 26, 2014 #17

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. My gut feeling is that it is wrong. Saying that the determinant is 0 usually just means that a non-trivial set is mapped to zero. I don't see how to prove that everything is mapped to zero. I have my doubts.
     
  19. Sep 26, 2014 #18

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    1) I think the concentrating on the determinants is a mistake. It looses too much information. Saying that a determinant is zero is not a strong enough statement to draw the conclusion. I think that the initial conditions imply that C, D, and B are transformations of A, where all the transformations are invertible. I think you should use that in your proof instead of determinants.

    2) I also think that there is a sign error. If we define B, C and D as B = C = D = A, doesn't that satisfy the initial conditions? But then we would be trying to prove that CA‑¹B+D = 2A =0. That can't be right. Oh. I see that the original problem was to show that D = CA‑¹B. So that is CA‑¹B - D =0.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: On block matrix
  1. Matrix in Block Form (Replies: 5)

Loading...