Show Invertibility of Similar Matrices: A & B

  • Thread starter Thread starter pyroknife
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrices
Click For Summary
If matrices A and B are similar, it can be shown that A is invertible if and only if B is invertible. The proof involves using the definition of similar matrices, where A can be expressed as A = P^-1 * B * P, with P being an invertible matrix. By manipulating this expression, it is established that A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P, indicating that B^-1 is also similar to A^-1. The discussion emphasizes that if B is not invertible (determinant is 0), then A will also not be invertible, and vice versa, confirming the relationship between their invertibility. This conclusion aligns with the requirement to use the definition of similar matrices to demonstrate the result.
pyroknife
Messages
611
Reaction score
4
If A and B are similar matrices, show that A has an inverse IFF B is invertible.

A=P^-1 * B * P
Where P is an invertible matrix.

(A)^-1 = (P^-1 * B * P)^-1
A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P

Does this show what the question wanted?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pyroknife said:
If A and B are similar matrices, show that A has an inverse IFF B is invertible.

A=P^-1 * B * P
Where P is an invertible matrix.

(A)^-1 = (P^-1 * B * P)^-1
A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P

Does this show what the question wanted?

Not until you explain in words how it does.
 
This shows that B^-1 is similar to A^-1?I forgot to put this in the statement, the problem specifically asked to "use the "definition" of similar matrices to show this."

My original proof was that if A and b are similar then they must have the same determinant. If B is not invertible then it's determinant is 0 and A will have a determinant of 0 and is therefore not invertible. If B is intervible then it's determinant is not 0 and...A is invertible. But the teacher said I needed to use the definition.
 
pyroknife said:
This shows that B^-1 is similar to A^-1?I forgot to put this in the statement, the problem specifically asked to "use the "definition" of similar matrices to show this."

My original proof was that if A and b are similar then they must have the same determinant. If B is not invertible then it's determinant is 0 and A will have a determinant of 0 and is therefore not invertible. If B is intervible then it's determinant is not 0 and...A is invertible. But the teacher said I needed to use the definition.

Ok, then use the definition. If A is invertible then A^(-1) exists. Use what you've got to give a formula for B^(-1). The show it works. And vice versa.
 
Dick said:
Ok, then use the definition. If A is invertible then A^(-1) exists. Use what you've got to give a formula for B^(-1). The show it works. And vice versa.

Alright so, after this:
(A)^-1 = (P^-1 * B * P)^-1
A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P
P^A^-1*P^-1=B^-1

Ugh, I guess I don't know what I need to do or maybe that I already have all the stuff, but not have worded it.
 
pyroknife said:
Alright so, after this:
(A)^-1 = (P^-1 * B * P)^-1
A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P
P^A^-1*P^-1=B^-1

Ugh, I guess I don't know what I need to do or maybe that I already have all the stuff, but not have worded it.

Ok, so you are claiming B^(-1)=PA^(-1)P^(-1). Check it. B=PAP^(-1) right, from your definition? Multiply your expression for B^(-1) by the expression for B using those forms. What do you get? How does that prove part of what you want?
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
Ok, so you are claiming B^(-1)=PA^(-1)P^(-1). Check it. B=PAP^(-1) right, from your definition? Multiply your expression for B^(-1) by the expression for B using those forms. What do you get? How does that prove part of what you want?

Wait from the definition, doesn't B=P^-1 * A *P?
 
pyroknife said:
Wait from the definition, doesn't B=P^-1 * A *P?

No. P is a fixed matrix once you've used the definition. You said A=P^-1 * B * P. So B=PAP^(-1). You are misunderstanding what the definition of similarity means.
 
Dick said:
No. P is a fixed matrix once you've used the definition. You said A=P^-1 * B * P. So B=PAP^(-1). You are misunderstanding what the definition of similarity means.

(A)^-1 = (P^-1 * B * P)^-1
A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P
P^A^-1*P^-1=B^-1


B*P^A^-1*P^-1=B*B^-1=I
PAP^(-1)*P^A^-1*P^-1=I
PA*I*A^-1*P^-1=I
PP^-1=I
I=I


Ok, so you are claiming B^(-1)=PA^(-1)P^(-1). Check it. B=PAP^(-1) right, from your definition? Multiply your expression for B^(-1) by the expression for B using those forms. What do you get? How does that prove part of what you want?
 
  • #10
pyroknife said:
(A)^-1 = (P^-1 * B * P)^-1
A^-1 = P^-1 * B^-1 * P
P^A^-1*P^-1=B^-1B*P^A^-1*P^-1=B*B^-1=I
PAP^(-1)*P^A^-1*P^-1=I
PA*I*A^-1*P^-1=I
PP^-1=I
I=IOk, so you are claiming B^(-1)=PA^(-1)P^(-1). Check it. B=PAP^(-1) right, from your definition? Multiply your expression for B^(-1) by the expression for B using those forms. What do you get? How does that prove part of what you want?

Any words to got along with all of those typos to indicate whether you get it or not? This sequence is rightish. PAP^(-1)*P^A^-1*P^-1=PA*I*A^-1*P^-1=PP^-1=I. So?
 
  • #11
Dick said:
Any words to got along with all of those typos to indicate whether you get it or not? This sequence is rightish. PAP^(-1)*P^A^-1*P^-1=PA*I*A^-1*P^-1=PP^-1=I. So?

If P*P^-1=I Then that means P is invertible. I think I'm just stating the obvious. This showed that multipling B^-1 by B gives the identity matrix which means B is invertible.
 
  • #12
pyroknife said:
If P*P^-1=I Then that means P is invertible. I think I'm just stating the obvious. This showed that multipling B^-1 by B gives the identity matrix which means B is invertible.

You've shown something you think is B^(-1) times B is I. That proves that the thing that you think is B^(-1) is, in fact, B^(-1). If CB=I then C is B^(-1). I think this is how the exercise wants you to show it.
 
  • #13
By the way, in a more abstract sense, a matrix always represents a linear transformation in some basis. A "similar" matrix represents the same linear transformation in a different basis. Of course, whether or not a linear transformation is invertible is independent of the specific basis in which it is represented.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K