Proving Invertibility of Matrices A & B: AB invertible

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that if the product of two square matrices A and B is invertible, then both matrices A and B must also be invertible. The discussion centers around properties of matrix multiplication and invertibility.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the existence of an inverse for the product AB, questioning how this relates to the individual invertibility of A and B. Some suggest using determinants, while others emphasize a direct proof approach.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the validity of certain assumptions and exploring different proof strategies. There is a recognition of the need for careful reasoning, particularly regarding the properties of linear transformations represented by matrices.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the proof should avoid reliance on determinants, indicating a preference for a more direct approach. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding the implications of singular matrices in the context of the problem.

mathboy
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Question: Let A and B be nxn matrices such that AB is invertible. Prove that A and B are invertible.

All I have so far is that there exists a matrix C such that
(AB)C = I and C(AB) = I.

How do I use this to show that there exists D such that AD = DA = I and that there exists E such that BE = EB = I ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If no such D and E exist, then there are no such D and E such that

I = EB = E(DA)B = (ED)(AB),

contradicting the existence of C. Is that correct?
 
Are you specifically looking for a "direct" proof? If not, then the simplest argument is: A matrix is invertible if and only if its determinant is non-zero. If AB is invertible, its determinant is non-zero. Also det(AB)= det(A)det(B). For a product of two numbers to be non-zero, neither can be zero- det(A) is non-zero so A is invertible; det(B) is non-zero so B is invertible.

I would agree that a direct proof, not using the determinant, would be preferable. For that, you will have to be careful. It is NOT true, in general, that if, for two functions f and g, f(g(x)) has an inverse, then f and g separately have inverses. To prove this for matrices (i.e. representing linear transformations) you will need to use the "linearity". In particular, if B is NOT invertible, then there must exist a non-zero vector, v, such that Bv= 0. But then ABv= A(Bv)= A0= 0.
 
mathboy said:
If no such D and E exist, then there are no such D and E such that

I = EB = E(DA)B = (ED)(AB),

contradicting the existence of C. Is that correct?
I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to say if "no such D and E" exist, and then write an equation with D and E! As I said before, the statement "if f(g(x)) has an inverse, then f(x) and g(x) must have inverses", for general functions, f and g, is NOT true. Let g:{a, b, c}-> {x} be defined by g(a)= x, g(b)= x, g(c)= x and f:{x}-> {y} be defined by f(x)= y. Then f(g) has no inverse because it maps all of {a, b, c} into y and is not "one to one". But g DOES have an inverse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose B is singular then there exists a nonzero vector v such that Bv = 0 hence
(AB)v = A(Bv) = A(0) = 0 but AB is nonsingular so v must equal zero.

Similar situation for A as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K