Symmetrical Matrices and Invertibility: Is A Always Invertible If Ax ≠ Ay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter peripatein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrices
Click For Summary
If a symmetrical matrix A satisfies Ax ≠ Ay for all distinct vectors x and y, it indicates that A is invertible. The discussion highlights that a singular matrix can produce the same output for different inputs, contradicting the initial proposition. A counterexample is provided with a singular matrix, demonstrating that Ax can equal zero for some non-zero vectors. The conclusion affirms that if A is invertible, then Ax = Ay implies x = y, ensuring a unique solution for the system Ax = b. Thus, the proposition holds true only for invertible matrices.
peripatein
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Would it be correct to say that if for every two different vectors x and y, A*x ≠ A*y (where A is a symmetrical matrix), then A is NOT necessarily invertible? In other words, albeit for any two different vectors x and y symmetrical matrix A times one of the vectors is not equal to A times the other, A is not necessarily invertible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correction, in case A is a square matrix (of order nXn)
 
If A is an n x n - matrix such that Ax ≠ Ay for all pairs of distinct n-vectors x and y, then A is invertible.
 
Let us examine the following singular matrix:
2 0 4
1 -1 3
0 -1 1

For any two different vectors I claim that that matrix multiplied by the first vector will never be equal to the multiplication of that same matrix by the second vector.
Hence, the matrix does not necessarily have to be singular for the proposition to be valid and hold.
Wouldn't you agree?
 
peripatein said:
Let us examine the following singular matrix:
2 0 4
1 -1 3
0 -1 1

For any two different vectors I claim that that matrix multiplied by the first vector will never be equal to the multiplication of that same matrix by the second vector.
Hence, the matrix does not necessarily have to be singular for the proposition to be valid and hold.
Wouldn't you agree?
Certainly not. As you said, the matrix is singular. This means that there is a nonzero vector x such that Ax=0 (such an x can easily be found if we solve the system Ax=0). On the other hand, A0=0, so Ax=A0, despite that x≠0.
 
Okay, so the proposition does not hold in case A is singular, but does that per se guarantee that it holds, for EVERY two different vectors, if A were not singular, i.e. invertible?
 
peripatein said:
Okay, so the proposition does not hold in case A is singular, but does that per se guarantee that it holds, for EVERY two different vectors, if A were not singular, i.e. invertible?
Yes, for if A is invertible and Ax=Ay, then x=Ix=(A-1A)x=A-1(Ax)=A-1(Ay)=(A-1A)y=Iy=y, that is, x=y.

The system Ax=b has a unique solution, x=A-1b, if x is invertible. Otherwise, it has either no solution or infinitely many solutions.
 
Thank you very much! :-)
 
The easy way to see this is false is consider the special case of x ≠ 0 and y = 0.

Ay = 0, so for every x ≠ 0, Ax ≠ 0.

If A is singular, there is a vector x ≠ 0 such that Ax = 0, which is a contradiction. Therefore A is non-singular.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K