Prove that if A is an invertible matrix and AB = BC then B = C.

  • Thread starter Thread starter ha9981
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if A is an invertible matrix and AB = BC, then B must equal C. The correct approach involves multiplying both sides of the equation by the inverse of A, denoted as A-1, leading to the conclusion that B = C. The conversation clarifies that this does not contradict the cancellation law for matrices, which applies only when A is non-zero but not necessarily invertible. The theorem specifically requires A to be invertible for the conclusion to hold.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix operations, specifically multiplication and inversion.
  • Familiarity with the concept of invertible matrices.
  • Knowledge of the cancellation law in matrix algebra.
  • Basic proficiency in linear algebra terminology.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of invertible matrices in linear algebra.
  • Learn about the cancellation law and its implications in matrix equations.
  • Explore examples of non-invertible matrices and their behavior in equations.
  • Investigate the implications of matrix multiplication order on equality.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying linear algebra, as well as educators looking to clarify concepts related to matrix operations and properties.

ha9981
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Prove that if A is an invertible matrix and AB = BC then B = C. I thought the way to approach it was to use A^-1 on the equality AB=BC but then I got stuck. I can't get it so that B is on one side and C alone is on the other.

My Try:
AB = BC
A^-1 AB = A^-1 BC
IB = A^-1BC


Also why does B = C not contradict the statement that "the cancellation law doesn't hold for matrices"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Surely, that's not what you want to prove? It's not true. Take A= C and then, for any B, AB= BC because both are just AB.

You must have meant "If AB= AC then B= C". Just multiply both sides on the left by A[sup[-1[/sup].

And it does not contradict the statement "the cancellation law doesn't hold for matrices" because the cancellation law says that "If AB= AC for any non-zero A, then B= C". The theorem you are trying to prove requires that A be invertible. There are many non-zero matrices that are not invertible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K