Some questions about invertibility of matrix products

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
After solving some problems about matrix invertibility and learning some theorems (and proving them), I have developed a set of questions about matrix invertibility. I have some claims but I don't know if they're true or false, so I was wondering if someone could point out which ones are true and which ones are false. Please don't give me any counterexamples or proofs, I wish to do them myself!

- A and B are not necessarily square, unless explictly stated
- The products AB and BA are defined wherever they happen to be mentioned

Here's what I already know:
- If A and B are invertible, the product AB and the product BA are both invertible, if they are defined.

What about the following?

1) If A and B are singular matrices, is the product AB also singular?
2) If A is invertible, but B is singular, is AB invertible or singular? What about BA?
3) If AB is invertible, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
4) If AB is singular, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
5) If BA is invertible, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
6) If BA is singular, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
7) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 3?
8) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 4?
9) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 5?
10) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 6?

Again, I only want to know whether they are true or false. I would like to prove/find counterexamples myself.

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bipolarity said:
After solving some problems about matrix invertibility and learning some theorems (and proving them), I have developed a set of questions about matrix invertibility. I have some claims but I don't know if they're true or false, so I was wondering if someone could point out which ones are true and which ones are false. Please don't give me any counterexamples or proofs, I wish to do them myself!

- A and B are not necessarily square, unless explictly stated
- The products AB and BA are defined wherever they happen to be mentioned

Here's what I already know:
- If A and B are invertible, the product AB and the product BA are both invertible, if they are defined.

What about the following?

1) If A and B are singular matrices, is the product AB also singular?
2) If A is invertible, but B is singular, is AB invertible or singular? What about BA?
3) If AB is invertible, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
4) If AB is singular, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
5) If BA is invertible, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
6) If BA is singular, can we conclude anything about the invertibility of A and/or B?
7) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 3?
8) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 4?
9) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 5?
10) If we know that A and B are square matrices, how does that affect Question 6?

Again, I only want to know whether they are true or false. I would like to prove/find counterexamples myself.

BiP
The notions of invertibility and singularity for matrices are only defined for square matrices. Therefore, it has no meaning to say that a nonsquare matrix is invertible / noninvertible / singular / nonsingular. Therefore, the questions 1-6 have no meaning if the matrices are not square.

For a square matrix, invertible is the same thing as nonsingular, and singular is the same thing as noninvertible.

For the questions 7-10, the answers are:

7) Both A and B are invertible/nonsingular.
8) At least one of A and B is singular/noninvertible.
9) Same as 7).
10) Same as 8).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertible_matrix
 
Erland said:
The notions of invertibility and singularity for matrices are only defined for square matrices. Therefore, it has no meaning to say that a nonsquare matrix is invertible / noninvertible / singular / nonsingular. Therefore, the questions 1-6 have no meaning if the matrices are not square.

For a square matrix, invertible is the same thing as nonsingular, and singular is the same thing as noninvertible.

For the questions 7-10, the answers are:

7) Both A and B are invertible/nonsingular.
8) At least one of A and B is singular/noninvertible.
9) Same as 7).
10) Same as 8).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertible_matrix

Thank you so much Erland! A grave mistake on my part not to realize that only square matrices have inverses (both left and right inverses). I will not attempt to prove the 4 results.

BiP
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top