Proving invertibility of a matrix

  • Thread starter Thread starter chipotleaway
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary
For an nxn matrix A where A^{2013}=0, it is established that A+I_n is invertible. The discussion suggests using the concept of nilpotent matrices to derive an expression for the inverse. A geometric series approach is proposed, similar to the expansion for real numbers, where (I-B)^{-1} can be expressed as a finite sum due to the nilpotency of B. Specifically, for a matrix B where B^4=0, the inverse can be computed as I - B + B^2 - B^3. This method illustrates that the finite series approach is applicable to the original matrix problem, confirming the invertibility of A+I_n.
chipotleaway
Messages
174
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If A is an nxn matrix such that A^{2013}=0, show that A+I_n is invertible and find an expression for (A+I_n)^-1

The Attempt at a Solution



...some hints would be nice :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chipotleaway said:

Homework Statement



If A is an nxn matrix such that A^{2013}=0, show that A+I_n is invertible and find an expression for (A+I_n)^-1

The Attempt at a Solution



...some hints would be nice :biggrin:

If r is a real number and |r|<1 then 1/(1+r)=1-r+r^2-r^3+r^4-... It's a geometric series. How is that proved? See if you can apply the same pattern to your matrix problem. That should be a good hint.
 
Thanks, we haven't covered that yet but it seems as though there's lots of stuff on the problem sets that we have to find for ourselves.
 
I think I need a bigger hint :p

I'm looking at A^{2013}=0 and wondering what kind of pattern the entries in the matrix would need to be so that the result of taking it to that power is 0 (other than all zero entries)

EDIT: Ah, found something - 'nilpotent matrices'...but the characterisations listed on WIki are mostly alien to me
 
Last edited:
If I have a number x, and I say what is (1+x)-1 (as a 1x1 matrix), you could do the following:
(1+x)^{-1} = 1-x+x^2-x^3+x^4...

It only works if x has certain properties (otherwise the series won't converge). You can do a similar thing with matrices
 
Look at a "smaller" situation first.
Suppose you have a matrix B such that B^4 = 0

With real numbers, if x is small enough, it can be shown that

(1-x)^(-1) = 1 -x + x^2 - x^3 + x^4 -

that is,

(1-x)(1 -x + x^2 - x^3 + x^4 -...) = 1

and this expansion goes on "forever" (it is an infinite series, if you've had calculus and know that term)

At least formally, let's try the same thing with our matrix (B)

Start with

(I - B)^(-1) = I - B + B^2 - B^3 + B^4 - B^5 +...

This may look bad ("how do I work with an infinite series when the terms are matrices?") but remember, for our matrix B, B^4 = 0: that means all higher powers of B are zero also, so our candidate for (I-B)^(-1) is

(I - B)^(-1) = I - B + B^2 - B^3

just a finite sum.

Now (this is for you) work through this product:

(I-B)(I-B+B^2-B^3)You should end up with the product equal to I - that means the inverse of (I-B) is given by (I-B)^(-1).

If this work makes sense, ask yourself: what is different about this small example and the question I asked?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K