What is the Notation for Adjoints in Matrices?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ac_nex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinants
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation and properties of adjoints in matrices, specifically in the context of calculating the determinant of a matrix expression involving the inverse and the adjugate (or adjoint) of a matrix. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose using the relationship between the adjugate and the inverse of a matrix, specifically that \( A^{-1} = \frac{adj(A)}{det(A)} \).
  • Others argue about the definition of adj(A), with some suggesting it refers to the adjugate matrix while others associate it with the Hermitian adjoint.
  • A participant calculates \( det(A^{-1} + adj(A)) \) using the expression \( A^{-1} + 2A^{-1} = 3A^{-1} \) and derives \( det(3A^{-1}) = \frac{3^5}{2} \), but this is contested by another participant.
  • One participant corrects their earlier solution, reiterating the calculation of \( det(3A^{-1}) \) and confirming the result as \( \frac{3^5}{2} \).
  • Another participant points out an error in the calculation of \( det(3A^{-1}) \) and suggests that the approach needs revision.
  • There is a discussion about the multiple definitions of the adjoint, including the classical adjoint and the adjoint as the transpose and conjugate of a matrix, raising questions about the appropriate notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and properties of the adjoint and adjugate, leading to multiple competing interpretations and calculations regarding the determinant. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the correct approach or notation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the dependence on definitions of the adjoint and adjugate, which may affect the calculations and interpretations presented. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the various proposed solutions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and professionals interested in linear algebra, particularly those exploring matrix properties and the implications of different definitions of adjoints in mathematical contexts.

ac_nex
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Just wondering, how would you solve a problem such as this one:

Suppose A is an 5 x 5 matrix, with det(A) = 2 find the following:

det(A^-1 + adj(A))

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
my first instinct is to multiply by A to see what happens, but I don't know the definition of adj(A). so I don't know what adj(A).A is.then use the fact that det respects products.
 
isn't adj(A) the adjoint matrix?
 
if adj means the adjugate, that is the transpose of the matrix of minors (which I guess some people also call the adjoint, but I save that for the Hermitian adjoint), then use the fact that A^-1=adj(A)/det(A)
 
A*A^-1 = I

det(A*A^-1)=det(I)=5
det(A)*det(A^-1)=5
2*det(A^-1)=5
det(A^-1)=5/2
A*Adj(A) = det(A)*I
det(Adj(A)) = det(A)^(n-1)
det(adj(A)) = 2^4 = 16
 
cronxeh said:
det(A*A^-1)=det(I)=5
I'm pretty sure that det(1)=1
 
Don Aman said:
I'm pretty sure that det(1)=1

:redface:

of course!
 
A^-1 = adj(A)/det(A)
=> adj(A)= det(A)*A^-1
det(A)=2 given
adj(A) = 2A^-1
A^-1 + adj(A) = A^-1 + 2 A^-1
=3 A^-1
det (3A^-1) = 3 det(A^-1) = 3 (det(A))^-1
=3*2^-1
=3/2

How's This
 
Tough question!

Actually guys, thanks for considering my question, but I am afraid all of your answers are different from what the actual answer is.

It says the answer is (3^5)/2

Any usefull remarks.
 
  • #10
Sorry in my earlier solution there was a problem
This is the correct solution

A^-1 = adj(A)/det(A)
=> adj(A)= det(A)*A^-1
det(A)=2 given
adj(A) = 2A^-1
A^-1 + adj(A) = A^-1 + 2 A^-1
=3 A^-1
=>det (3A^-1)
since A is 5*5 matrix
det(3A^-1)=3^5 det(A^-1)
=3^5 (det A)^-1
=3^5 (2)^-1
=3^5/2

enjoy
 
  • #11
neo143 says that det (3A^-1) = 3 det(A^-1), which is incorrect. You should be able to fix this easily yourself, though.
 
  • #12
A^-1 = (1/2)*adj(A)
A^-1 + adj(A) = (1/2)*adj(A) + adj(A) = (3/2)*adj(A)

det(a*A) = (a^n)*det(A)

so, det(3/2*adj(A)) = (3/2)^5 * det(adj(A))

A^-1 = adj(A)/det(A) , adj(A)=(1/2)*(A^-1) , A*A^-1 = I , det(A*A^-1)=1=det(A)*det(A^-1) , det(A^-1) = 1/2

A^-1 = (1/2)*adj(A)
adj(A) = 2*(A^-1)
det(adj(A)) = (2^5)*(1/2)

det(3/2*adj(A)) = ( (3/2)^5 ) * (( 2^5))/2 = 121.5

Edit: you already got it
 
  • #13
Thanks, I already knew how to do it after some serious thinking about neo143's first post. Thanks again.
 
  • #14
i think i completely solved it for you, modulo the definition of adj.

i.e. since adj(A).det(A) = A^(-1),

my advice gives det(A)det(A^(-1)+adj(A)) = det(I + 2I) = det(3I) = 3^5.

hence det(A^(-1)+adj(A)) = 3^5/2.
 
  • #15
how many definitions does adjoint take?

1) there is the classical adjoint (its exact definition too messy to write) which has the useful relation A^(-1)=Adj(A)/det(A).

2) then there is the definition of adjoint as the transpose and conjugate of a matrix.

These two adjoint operation are different. May i know what notation is usually used? Adj?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K