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!

Prove that a square matrix is not invertible iff 0 is an eigenvalue of A

  1. Feb 16, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Prove that a square matrix is not invertible if and only if 0 is an eigenvalue of A.


    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution

    Given:
    [tex]

    A\vec{x} = \lambda\vec{x} \Rightarrow

    A\vec{x} - \lambda\vec{x} = \vec{0} \Rightarrow

    (A - \lambda I)\vec{x} = \vec{0}

    [/tex]
    By definition x not = 0,
    If [tex] \lambda = 0 \Rightarrow A\vec{x} = \vec{0}[/tex]

    Since x not = 0, A is not linearly independent therefore not invertible.


    I suck at doing proves. Do I need to show it with general arbitrary variables..?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 16, 2010 #2

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    Now you are "waving your arms." What does it mean to say that a single matrix is linearly independent?

    You are given that 0 is an eigenvalue, so it must be that Ax = 0, for x != 0. What about |Ax|? Can you do something with that?
    You get better at doing proofs (not proves) by doing proofs. Prove is a verb; proof is a noun.

    BTW, problems like this really should go into the Calculus & Beyond section.
     
  4. Feb 16, 2010 #3
    I'm not sure I follow what you mean.. maybe I can say something about the inverse of the matrix..? Like if the determinant of the matrix is 0 then it is not invertible?
     
  5. Feb 16, 2010 #4

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, exactly.
     
  6. Feb 16, 2010 #5
    Okay so since the columns of the matrix are not linearly independent (because the nullspace of the matrix does not only contain the zero vector), there will be a zero column and therefore the determinant of the matrix will be 0, therefore the matrix is not invertible?
     
  7. Feb 16, 2010 #6

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    You can do it much more simply. Since Ax = 0x, then (A - 0)x = 0. What does that say about the determinant of A - 0? Here 0 represents the nxn zero matrix.
     
  8. Feb 16, 2010 #7
    The determinant of (A - 0) is 0 since it is not linearly independent..?
    Or can I just say it is 0 because x is not 0?
     
  9. Feb 16, 2010 #8

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't think you understand what linear independence means. You have reverted back to what you said in post 1.

    Here is a matrix, A:
    [0 1]
    [0 0]
    Here is a vector x:
    [1]
    [0]
    Clearly A is not the zero matrix, and x is not the zero vector, yet Ax = 0, right?

    Would you describe A as linearly dependent, linearly independent, or neither?
     
  10. Feb 16, 2010 #9
    Can't I just look at the columns of the matrix and see if they can be written as some linear combination of the others..? So A is linearly dependent since 0(1,0) = (0,0)?
     
  11. Feb 16, 2010 #10

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    What if you're not given any details about the columns of the matrix?

    You are misusing or misunderstanding the concept of linear independence/dependence. You can describe the columns of a matrix as being linearly dependent or linearly independent, but you wouldn't describe matrices this way unless you're treating them as vectors.

    Using the definition of linear independence, the matrix as I have defined it is linearly independent. The equation cA = 0 has only a single solution, namely c = 0.

    What I have been trying to get you to realize is that |A - 0| = 0. That says something important about A, the nullspace of A, the rows of A, the columns of A, and also about the invertibility (or not) of A. Haven't you seen any theorem about the determinant of a square matrix and its invertibility?
     
  12. Feb 16, 2010 #11
    I'm not exactly sure but I remember finding the inverse of a matrix involves multiplying it by 1/ the determinant of the matrix, so if the determinant of the matrix is 0 then its inverse is not defined..?
     
  13. Feb 16, 2010 #12

    statdad

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Just a note - remember that the determinant of a square matrix equals the product of its eigenvalues.
     
  14. Feb 16, 2010 #13

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    IIRC, that's a technique for inverting 2 x 2 matrices. I don't think it applies to larger matrices.

    Let's try another tack: You have Ax = 0 for nonzero x. What do you know about the nullspace of A?
     
  15. Feb 16, 2010 #14
    Umm for nonzero x the nullspace of A has more than just the zero vector so it has dimension more than 0?
     
  16. Feb 16, 2010 #15

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, so what does that say about the invertibility of A?
     
  17. Feb 16, 2010 #16
    If dimension of nullspace > 0 that means there is at least one parameter, so the rank of A not = the dimension of A, and so A is not invertible..?
     
  18. Feb 16, 2010 #17

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    Or in short, if dim(null(A)) > 0, then A is not invertible.

    Going back to the OP, you have established that for an n X n matrix A, if 0 is an eigenvalue of A, then A is not invertible.

    Now go the other way to show that A being non-invertible implies that 0 is an eigenvalue of A.
     
  19. Feb 16, 2010 #18
    Okay.. not sure how to do this haha

    Given A not invertible then dim(null(A)) > 0, and

    [tex]

    A = (A - 0) = (A - \lambda I) [/tex] iff [tex]
    \lambda = 0

    [/tex]
     
  20. Feb 17, 2010 #19

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    You need to flesh this out a bit. How does it use the fact that A is not invertible?
     
  21. Feb 17, 2010 #20

    statdad

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Once again - you folks are taking an incredibly difficult path to this:

    Determinant= product of eigenvalues

    What do you know about the invertability of the matrix in relation to the determinant?
    what must be true about the eigen values if the determinant is zero?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Prove that a square matrix is not invertible iff 0 is an eigenvalue of A
  1. Invertible matrix (Replies: 14)

  2. Proving 0/0 is undefined (Replies: 34)

Loading...