Show that a matrix has a right inverse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around proving the existence of a right inverse for an m x n matrix A with rank m. Participants explore the implications of A being a surjective map and the conditions under which right inverses exist.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between the rank of matrix A and the existence of right inverses, questioning the implications of surjectivity. They also consider the Rank-Nullity theorem and its relevance to the problem. Some suggest using orthogonality and matrix factorizations, while others mention Singular Value Decomposition as a potential approach.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing various perspectives on the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of the Rank-Nullity theorem and matrix factorizations, but there is no explicit consensus on the next steps or a definitive approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of clarifying the relationship between m and n, as well as the implications of A having full row rank. There is also mention of the need for precision in expressions related to surjectivity.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


Let ##A## be an ##m \times n## matrix with rank ##m##. Prove that there exists an ##n \times m## matrix ##B## such that ##AB= I_m##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


So here is how far I get. I am given that ##A## has rank ##m##. Since ##L_A(x) = Ax## is a map ##\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m##, this means that ##L_A## is a surjective map.
I know that in set theory, surjective maps must have right-inverses, so I get the sense that I am on the right track. But I am not sure how to continue the proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should be more precise in your expression. The fact that you have a map ##\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^m ## doesn't imply it's surjective.

What do we know about ##m, n ##? Right iverses certainly exist [in fact, there's a whole family of such right inverses] when there are more columns than rows and the matrix ##A## has a full row rank.

The Rank-Nullity theorem provides a solution.
 
nuuskur said:
You should be more precise in your expression. The fact that you have a map ##\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^m ## doesn't imply it's surjective.

What do we know about ##m, n ##? Right iverses certainly exist [in fact, there's a whole family of such right inverses] when there are more columns than rows and the matrix ##A## has a full row rank.

The Rank-Nullity theorem provides a solution.
The Rank-Nullity theorem seems to tell me that ##\text{nullity}(A) = n-m>0##. But I don't see how this helps me
 
my general approach is to make use of orthogonality for these things -- it is a much cleaner cut than general linear independence. Since we are in reals, consider using gram-schmidt and get:

##\mathbf A = \mathbf{T V}^T##

(this is an atypical factorization but one I used in another of your threads recently), or more typically:

##\mathbf A^T = \mathbf{Q R}##, hence ##\mathbf A = \Big(\mathbf R^T \mathbf Q^T \Big)##.

Where ##\mathbf Q## is orthogonal, but not full rank (it is n x m) and ##\mathbf R## is square m x m matrix.

What happens if you multiply

##\Big( \mathbf R^T \mathbf Q^T\Big) \Big(\mathbf Q\Big) = \mathbf R^T \big(\mathbf Q^T \mathbf Q\big) = \mathbf R^T##. So we need to be able to invert ##\mathbf R^T##... how do I know that ##\mathbf R^T## is invertible?

You could also use Singular Value Decomposition to get this.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K