Proof of Idempotent Matrix with Inverse = Identity Matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter keelejody
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary
An idempotent matrix, defined by the property A^2 = A, can only be the identity matrix if it has an inverse. To prove this, one can multiply both sides of the equation A^2 = A by A^-1, leading to the conclusion that A must equal the identity matrix. Additionally, constructing an arbitrary 3x3 matrix and setting up equations based on its idempotent property can help illustrate this concept. The more elegant proof provided by HallsofIvy applies to all n x n matrices, reinforcing the idea that the only idempotent matrix with an inverse is indeed the identity matrix. Understanding these proofs enhances comprehension of matrix algebra fundamentals.
keelejody
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
is there a direct proof that an idempotent matrix with inverse, can only be an identity matirx

i can't find about how id prove it

i know A^2=A and A^-1 exists

so too AB=BA

its obvious to say elements must be 1 or 0 but finding an overal rule isn't obvious to me
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If A has an inverse, multiply both sides of A2= A by A-1!
 
If you're feeling overly ambitious, you could also try setting up an arbitrary 3x3 matrix (like with entries a, b, c...). Multiply it by itself, and then set it equal to itself. You should come out with a system of equations that should end up proving that your arbitrary matrix is the identity.

The proof above (HallsofIvy) is much more elegant, and applicable for all nxn matrices, but setting up the arbitrary matrix would probably be a good way to practice your matrix math.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K