Proving the Inverse Existence of C and its Value through Matrix Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rizzamabob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Proof
Rizzamabob
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
"Show that if a square matrix C satisfies
C^3 + C^2 + C + I = 0
then the inverse C^-1 exists and
C^-1 = -(C^2 + C + I)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hint

all you need to remember is that
c^(-1)c=I
and
c^2 = cc
c^3 = ccc
and the associative property of matrix multiplication
P.S. c^(-1) is taken here as the left inverse of c
 
Ok, i didn't realize i could write matrix's like that and deal with them just as variables...
OK so this is what i did...

CCC + CC + C + I = 0 (re arrange)
C = - (CCC + CC + I) (I = C^(1) C)
C = - (CCC + CC + (C^(-1)C)) (GET C^(-1)C on other side)
C^(-1)C = - (CCC + CC + C) (DIVIDE BY C)
C^(-1) = - (CC + C + 1) (1 = Identity matrix)
C^(-1) = - (CC + C + I)

DONE !? :!) :rolleyes:
 
you are okay up to your third equation

"Show that if a square matrix C satisfies
C^3 + C^2 + C + I = 0
then the inverse C^-1 exists and
C^-1 = -(C^2 + C + I)

Lets do it simpler...

Just multiple your left hand side (every term on it !) by C^(-1) and the right hand side by the same.

C^(-1) ( C^3 + C^2+ C +I) = C^(-1) 0

What do you get from here is the result that you're looking for
 
Because well, you cannot exactly treat matrices as variables..

The Division (Divide by C) is not defined, just the multiplication.
and the multiplication of a matrix by its (left) inverse has the property that

C^(-1)C=I

And because the matrix multiplication is associative, if

C^2=CC then C^(-1)C^2= C^(-1)CC = (C^(-1) C) C = I C = C

something similar for C^3 or an arbitrary power of C
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top