Why is a matrix singular if the determinant is zero?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of matrix singularity in relation to the determinant being zero. Participants explore the implications of a zero determinant on the invertibility of matrices, including geometric interpretations and algebraic properties. The scope includes theoretical explanations, mathematical reasoning, and conceptual clarifications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a deeper understanding of the statement regarding matrices and determinants, indicating uncertainty about the terminology.
  • Another participant explains that the determinant represents the ratio of the n-dimensional volume of a transformed box to the original box, suggesting that a zero determinant indicates a loss of dimensionality and thus non-invertibility.
  • A participant notes the property that the determinant of a product of matrices equals the product of their determinants, implying that if the determinant of one matrix is zero, it cannot produce an identity matrix when multiplied by another matrix.
  • It is mentioned that the determinant being zero implies at least one eigenvalue is zero, leading to the conclusion that there exists a non-zero vector that is mapped to zero, reinforcing the non-invertibility of the matrix.
  • Some participants express appreciation for the combined definitions and explanations provided, indicating a general understanding of the topic.
  • A participant offers a geometric interpretation of the determinant as a volume measure, using a specific example of two vectors in the plane to illustrate the concept.
  • Another participant reiterates the definition of the determinant as the signed volume spanned by column vectors, noting the dependence on the order of the vectors.
  • A different perspective is introduced, considering determinants as multilinear functions and exploring their relationship to volume computation and exterior algebra.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relationship between a zero determinant and matrix singularity, with multiple perspectives and interpretations presented. However, no consensus is reached on a singular definition or explanation, as various approaches and understandings coexist.

Contextual Notes

Some definitions and interpretations of the determinant are presented, but the discussion does not resolve the nuances or dependencies on specific mathematical contexts or definitions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in mathematics or related fields who are exploring the properties of determinants and their implications for matrix invertibility.

brownman
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm looking for the deeper meaning behind this law/theorem/statement (I don't know what it is, please correct me). My textbook just told us a matrix is not invertible if the determinant is zero.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi brownman! :smile:

an nxn matrix is a linear transformation on ℝn to itself

its determinant is the ratio of the n-dimensional volume of the image of a box to the volume of the box itself

if the determinant is 0, the image of the box is flattened by at least one dimension (because its volume is 0), so the transformation obviously isn't invertible (it isn't one-to-one)

if the determinant isn't 0, the box isn't flattened, so the transformation can always be reversed :wink:
 
It is also true that det(AB)= det(A)det(B). so if det(A)= 0, it is impossible to have AB= I for any matrix B.
 
As the determinant is the product of the eigenvalues of a matrix it being zero means at least one of the eigenvalues is zero as well. By definition it follows that Ax = 0x = 0 for some vector x ≠ 0. In case A was invertible we would have (A^-1)Ax = 0 meaning x = 0 which contradicts that x ≠ 0 and therefore A is not invertible.
 
Okay the combined definitions from all of you seem to make a general sort of sense, thank you for the help guys :)
 
A definition of the determinant of an n*n matrix as the n-volume spanned by its column vectors gives this result easily. It can also be proved using other definitions with somewhat more hassle.
 
brownman said:
Okay the combined definitions from all of you seem to make a general sort of sense, thank you for the help guys :)

A way to "see" that a determinant is a volume measure is to work it out for two vectors in the plane. It is a simple exercise in Euclidean geometry.

For instance suppose the two vectors are (5,0) and (3,2)

The area of the parallelogram that they span is the height times the base which is 2(the height) x 5(the base). The determinant of the matrix

5 0
3 2

is 5 x 2 - 3x0.

Can you generalize this example?
 
fortissimo said:
A definition of the determinant of an n*n matrix as the n-volume spanned by its column vectors gives this result easily. It can also be proved using other definitions with somewhat more hassle.

Also, it is the signed volume, which depends on the order of the vectors.
 
Another way to think about determinates is to think of them as multilinear functions of the rows (or columns) and investigate how this algebraic property is related to computing volumes. The approach leads to the idea of the exterior algebra of a vector space.

Question: Is every alternating multilinear map a determinant?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K