Proof of Square Matrix Equation: B^2 - 2B + I = 0 and its Inverse B^-1 = 2I - B

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equation for a square matrix B, specifically that if B satisfies the equation B2 - 2B + I = 0, then its inverse is given by B-1 = 2I - B. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding matrix properties, such as singularity and determinants, to establish the existence of the inverse. The conversation also highlights the necessity of mastering matrix algebra to tackle similar proofs effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of square matrices and their properties
  • Knowledge of the identity matrix (I) and its role in matrix equations
  • Familiarity with determinants and the concept of singular vs. nonsingular matrices
  • Basic matrix algebra, including operations like multiplication and addition
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of determinants in relation to matrix inverses
  • Learn about the algebra of square matrices, focusing on non-commutative multiplication
  • Practice proofs involving matrix equations, particularly those involving identities
  • Explore the implications of singular matrices and their determinants in linear algebra
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in linear algebra, mathematicians focusing on matrix theory, and anyone seeking to improve their skills in proving matrix equations and understanding matrix properties.

MichalKol
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that if B is a square matrix that satisfies the equation
B^2 - 2B + I = 0
then
B^-1 = 2I - B


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I've never before done a proof involving actual unknown matrices. Basically i know what a square matrix is (n x n matrix) I am also pretty sure that I is the identity matrix. I've tried algebraic operations on the equations to make them equal, however I am rusty on what can and can't be done with matrices. Any help even a starting location will be much appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. First deduce the possible values for the determinant of B. If B is not singular, then B-1 exists.

2. If B-1 exists (hint: it does exist), then you can multiply both sides of the equation by it.
 
AHHH thank you! I was able to get the first equation to equal what it was suppose to be. If I'm faced with questions like these what do you recommend i do first? Also i did not really understand what you ment by "First deduce the possible values for the determinant of B. If B is not singular, then B-1 exists"

thanks for the help!
 
MichalKol said:
AHHH thank you! I was able to get the first equation to equal what it was suppose to be. If I'm faced with questions like these what do you recommend i do first? Also i did not really understand what you ment by "First deduce the possible values for the determinant of B. If B is not singular, then B-1 exists"

thanks for the help!

A recommendation is to look up the definition of a regular matrix. Further on, this problem is nothing else than adjusting the equation to fit into your definition.
 
no no, radou i was able to do the problem after the first hint, I am just wondering how i should approach different proofs (with matrices) in the future).
 
MichalKol said:
no no, radou i was able to do the problem after the first hint, I am just wondering how i should approach different proofs (with matrices) in the future).

Just do a few more proofs and your question will be answered automatically.
 
Allright well how about: If A is a square matrix such that A^3 = 0, show that (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

The books answer is as follows:
(I-A)(I + A + A^2) = I - A^3 = I - 0 = I, therefore (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

i mean i understand how they got (I-A)(I + A + A^2) = I, what i don't understand is why they did that and how that prooves (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

once again any help is appreciated
 
MichalKol said:
Allright well how about: If A is a square matrix such that A^3 = 0, show that (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

The books answer is as follows:
(I-A)(I + A + A^2) = I - A^3 = I - 0 = I, therefore (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

i mean i understand how they got (I-A)(I + A + A^2) = I, what i don't understand is why they did that and how that prooves (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

once again any help is appreciated

These are just steps which require some experience, which you'll definitely gain after solving a considerable amount of problems. My replies may not seem very helpful, but I hope you get my point. :smile:
 
AHHH, nevermind i figured out the question... well i think i did... its actually quite similar to the first one...

multiplie both sides of (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2
by (I-A) thus getting I = (I + A + A^2) x (I-A)
then just do the thing the book shower and you get I=I , anyway i think that's right
 
  • #10
yah i do radou i just get frustrated when i can't figure out problems :P. Answers at the back of books usualy anger me as they don't really show steps. I was suprised when my book came with no solutions manual... speaking of which why do textbooks cost 110$ and not even have a solutions manual...
 
  • #11
MichalKol said:
AHHH, nevermind i figured out the question... well i think i did... its actually quite similar to the first one...

multiplie both sides of (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2
by (I-A) thus getting I = (I + A + A^2) x (I-A)
then just do the thing the book shower and you get I=I , anyway i think that's right

You can't use the solution to the problem to solve the problem, that's what you just did.
 
  • #12
Basically, you have to learn some aspects of the matrix algebra of square matrices, which is very similar to (but not exactly the same) as the algebra of real variables. You can add and take linear combinations, etc... However, something like (1/A) doesn't make sense. Instead, one has the inverse A-1, if it exists, such that AA-1=I=A-1A. In addition, one has to be aware that matrix multiplication is not generally commutative: AB =/= BA in general. So, "multiplying on the left side" is different from "multiplying on the right side".
 
Last edited:
  • #13
I don't think i quite understand what you mean. The question is If A is a square matrix such that A^3 = 0, show that (I-A)^-1 = I + A + A^2

All i have to proove is that (I-A)^-1 = (I + A + A^2)
or that LS = RS
LS = (I-A)^-1, i then multiply it by (I-A) getting I
then for RS
(I + A + A^2) x (I-A) , because what you do to one side you got to do to the other you get I... therefore LS = RS and the proof is prooven.. no?
 
  • #14
And another useful fact is that AB = 0 does not imply that either A or B (or both) equal zero (i.e. the zero matrix).

Edit: not related to your problem, but could be to some other one you'll encounter.
 
  • #15
robphy said:
Basically, you have to learn some aspects of the matrix algebra of square matrices, which is very similar to (but not exactly the same) as the algebra of real variables. You can add and take linear combinations, etc... However, something like (1/A) doesn't make sense. Instead, one has the inverse A-1, if it exists, such that AA-1=I=A-1A. In addition, one has to be aware that matrix multiplication is not generally commutative: AB =/= BA in general. So, "multiplying on the left side" is different from "multiplying on the right side".

Bah, now i don't know what to do, haha
 
  • #16
MichalKol said:
speaking of which why do textbooks cost 110$ and not even have a solutions manual...

They want to make you think on your own for 110$. :wink:
 
  • #17
MichalKol said:
Also i did not really understand what you ment by "First deduce the possible values for the determinant of B. If B is not singular, then B-1 exists"

You can't multiply both sides of the equation by B-1 if that matrix doesn't exist, right? So before you get to that step, you need to make sure that B even has an inverse. There's a theorem that says that a square matrix B has an inverse if and only if its determinant is not zero (that is, if and only if the B is nonsingular). You should be able to deduce from your equation that the only possible value of det(B) is 1, so the inverse of B exists, and you can proceed.
 
  • #18
to show something is the inverse of [ ], just show it gives the identity when you multiply it by [ ].

i.e. a proof should start from a definition,a nd that's the definition on inverse.

in this case the definition pretty much solves all your questions immediately.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Person i belongs to a clique iff ith diagonal entry of B^3 is positive
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Does there exist a 2x2 non-singular matrix with only one 1d eigenspace?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Finding inverse from matrix equation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Proving statements about matrices | Linear Algebra
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Linear Algebra: Verifying A^2-2A+7I=0
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
How should I show that ## B ## is given by the solution of this?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Linear Algebra, Find a matrix C st CA = B
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
My proof of the Geometry-Real Analysis theorem
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Avoid unpleasant integrals in solving IVP
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
The Maximum Rank of a Matrix B Given AB=0 and A is a Full Rank Matrix
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K