1. PF Contest - Win "Conquering the Physics GRE" book! Click Here to Enter
    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!

Proofs about Matrix

  1. Sep 18, 2011 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    See question 5

    2. Relevant equations

    3. The attempt at a solution

    For part a, it is very easy.
    Multiply the inverse of A 2 times on both side, we can see the B=inverse of A.
    i.e. The required B is inverse of A, then the proof is finished.

    But how about part b?
    It seems it is the same part a.

    Is part b also correct?

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Part b is quite different from part a- and the difference is important to learn. Mathematics must be very very precise in its wording- unlike science we don't have observations and experiments to fall back on. In other words, we can't just look at the real world- words are everything!

    In part a it ask if, given a non-singular matrix A, there exist a matrix B such that [itex]AB^2= A[/itex]. You are right- just multiply, on the left, on both sides by [itex]A^{-1}[/itex], which exists because A is non-singular, and the equation becomes AB= I. Yes, B exists and is the inverse of A.

    In part B, it asks if there exists a matrix B such that, for any non-singular matrix, A, [itex]A^2B= A[/itex]. "Any" is the crucial word there. Is there a single matrix B that is the inverse of all invertible matrices?
  4. Sep 18, 2011 #3
    Well, after listening to your explaination, I know part b is obvious wrong.
    However, I wonder how to write it out.
  5. Sep 18, 2011 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "No, there does not exist a single matrix, B, such that [itex]A^2B= A[/itex] for all non-singular matrices, A."
  6. Sep 18, 2011 #5
    Oh, this is the prove?
  7. Sep 18, 2011 #6
    Let me try for part d.

    Since [itex]A[/itex] is non-singular, [itex]A^{-1}[/itex] exists.
    So [itex]\vec{x}[/itex]=[itex]A^{-1}[/itex][itex]\vec{y}[/itex] exists.

    So, there exists [itex]\vec{x}[/itex] s.t. [itex]A[/itex][itex]\vec{x}[/itex]=[itex]\vec{y}[/itex]

    Again, how to disprove part c?
    By simply saying NO, there doesn't exist?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Proofs Matrix Date
Proving two simple matrix product properties Sep 4, 2016
Rotation matrix proof Nov 3, 2015
Proof affine function as matrix equation Sep 28, 2013
Matrix proof question Mar 14, 2013
Matrix proof Jun 4, 2012