Introductory Linear Algebra/Matrix inverses and determinants

Matrix inverses

edit

Matrix inverses are analogous to the multiplicative inverse (or reciprocal) in the number system.

Definition. (Matrix inverses) An   matrix   is invertible (or non-singular) if there exists an   matrix   such that   The matrix   is the inverse of  , and is usually denoted by  . A matrix that has no inverse is non-invertible (or singular).

Remark.

  • by the invertible matrix theorem (proof of its complete version is complicated, and so is skipped), if one of   and   holds, then the other also holds

In the number system, the multiplicative inverse, if it exists, is unique. Indeed, the matrix inverse, if it exists, is also unique similarly, as shown in the following proposition.

Proposition. (Uniqueness of matrix inverse) Matrix inverse, if it exists, is unique.

Proof. Suppose to the contrary, that distinct matrices   and   are both inverses of matrix  . Then,   by definition of matrix inverse. If the matrix inverse of   exists, we have   which causes a contradiction.

 

Example. (Invertible matrix) The matrix   is invertible and its inverse is   since   (it implies that the matrix product in another order is also   by the invertible matrix theorem)

 

Exercise.

Is   invertible?

yes
no



Example. (Non-invertible matrix) The matrix   is non-invertible.

Proof. Suppose to the contrary, that the matrix is invertible, i.e. there exists a matrix   such that   But, this equality is equivalent to   which is impossible, causing a contradiction.

 


 

Exercise.

1 Choose all correct statements.

if matrices   and   are invertible,   is also invertible
if matrices   and   are non-invertible,   is also non-invertible
if matrices   and   are invertible,   and   are also invertible
if matrices   and   are non-invertible,   is also non-invertible

2 Choose all correct statements.

since  , the inverse of   is  
let   be a matrix.  
if matrix   is invertible,   for each matrix with the same size as  


Proposition. (Properties of matrix inverse) Let   and   be invertible matrices of the same size, and let   be a nonzero scalar. Then,

  • (self-invertibility)   is invertible and  
  • (scalar multiplicativity)   is invertible and  
  • ('reverse multiplicativity')   is invertible and  
  • (interchangibility of inverse and transpose)   is invertible  

Proof.

  • (self-invertibility) since   is invertible,  , and thus   is invertible, and its inverse is  
  • (scalar multiplicativity)  , as desired
  • ('reverse multiplicativity')  , as desired
  • (interchangibility of inverse and transpose)  , as desired

 

Remark.

  • inductively, we can have general 'reverse multiplicativity':   is invertible and

 

Matrix inverse can be used to solve SLE, as follows:

Proposition. Let   be a SLE in which   is an invertible matrix. Then, the SLE has a unique solution given by  .

Proof.  

 

Then, we will define the elementary matrix, which is closely related to EROs, and is important for the proof of results related to EROs.

Definition. (Elementary matrix) Let   be a positive integer. There are three types of   elementary matrices. An elementary matrix of type I,II or III is a matrix obtained by a type I,II or III ERO on the identity matrix   respectively.

Remark.

  • if a matrix needs to be obtained by performing two or more EROs on the identity matrix, it is not an elementary matrix

Example. The matrix   is an elementary matrix of type I, since it can be obtained by performing the ERO   on  , the matrix   is an elementary matrix of type II, since it can be obtained by performing the ERO   on  , and the matrix   is an elementary matrix of type III, since it can be obtained by performing the ERO   on  .

The matrix   is not an elementary matrix, since it needs to be obtained by performing at least two EROs on  , e.g.  , in this order

 

Exercise.

Choose correct statement(s)

product of elementary matrices is elementary matrix
  if   is the inverse of  
if   and   are invertible matrices of the same size, the SLE   has an unique solution
sum of elementary matrices is elementary matrix


Proposition. Let   be an   matrix. If   is obtained from   by performing an ERO, then there exists an   elementary matrix   such that  , and   can be obtained from   by performing the same ERO.

Conversely, if   is an   elementary matrix, then   is the matrix obtained from   by performing the corresponding ERO.

Proof. Outline:   case: e.g.

  • type I ERO: 
  • type II ERO:

 

  • type III ERO:

 

 

Remark.

  • illustration of the proposition:

 

  • inductively, we have:

 

Example. The following EROs   correspond to the matrix multiplication  

Proposition. (Invertibility of elementary matrix) Elementary matrices are invertible. The inverse of an elementary matrix is an elementary matrix of the same type.

Proof. The reverse process of each ERO is an ERO of the same type. Let   and   be the elementary matrices corresponding to these two EROs (an ERO and its reverse process), which are of the same type. Then,  , as desired (since   can be obtained from   by performing an ERO and its reverse process together).

 

Remark.

  • if   is the RREF of  , then   for some elementary matrices  
  • since elementary matrices are invertible,   is invertible, and equal to  
  • in other words,   for some invertible matrix  

Example. Since the reverse process of  ,   and   are  ,   and  , the inverses of the elementary matrices  ,   and   are  ,   and   respectively.

In particular, the inverse of type I elementary matrix is itself.

 

Exercise. It is given that matrix   is obtained from matrix   by performing the EROs  , in this order, and  .

1 Find  .

 
 
 
 

2 Find  .

 
 
 


Then, we will state a simplified version of invertible matrix theorem, in which some results from the complete version of invertible matrix theorem are removed.

Theorem. (Simplified invertible matrix theorem) Let   be an   matrix. Then, the following are equivalent.

(i)   is invertible

(ii) the homogeneous SLE   only has the trivial solution  

(iii) the RREF of   is  

(iv)   is a product of elementary matrices

Proof. To prove this, we may establish a cycle of implications, i.e. (i)   (ii)   (iii)   (iv)   (i), then, when we pick two arbitrary statements form the four statements, they are equivalent to each other, which means that the four statements are equivalent.

(i)   (ii): it follows from the proposition about solving SLE, and  

(ii)   (iii): since the SLE has a unique solution, the RREF of the augmented matrix of the SLE   has a leading one in each of the first   columns, but not the  st column, i.e. it is  . It follows that the RREF of   is  , since after arbitrary EROs, the rightmost zero column is still zero column.

(iii)   (iv): since RREF of   is  , and RREF of   equals   for some elementary matrices  , it follows that  . By definition and general 'reverse multiplicativity' of matrix inverse, we have  

i.e.   is a product of elementary matrices

(iv)   (i): since   is a product of elementary matrices and an elementary matrix is invertible, it follows that   is invertible by general 'reverse multiplicativity' of matrix inverse.

 

Remark.

  • this theorem provides us multiple ways to prove invertibility of matrix: we can prove it by proving one of the equivalent statements
  • this may make the proof easier
  • later, when we discuss some results about these equivalent statements, they can be linked to this theorem

Example. Consider the matrix  . We can find its RREF by Gauss-Jordan algorithm, as follows:   Since its RREF is  , by the simplified invertible matrix theorem, we also have the following results:

(i)   is invertible

(ii) the homogeneous SLE   only has trivial solution  

(iii)   is a product of elementary matrices

Let's verify them one by one.

(i):    Y

(ii): the SLE can be represented by the augmented matrix  , and we can find its RREF by Gauss-Jordan algorithm, as follows:  

Then, we can directly read from the RREF of augmented matrix that the SLE only has the trivial solution.  Y

(iii):    Y

 

Exercise. Consider the matrix  , and the SLE  .

Choose correct statement(s).

  is invertible
  has unique solution
  is not a product of elementary matrices
the RREF of   is  


The following provides us a convenient and efficient way to find the inverse of a matrix.

Theorem. (Finding matrix inverse using Gauss-Jordan algorithm) Let   be an   invertible matrix. Then, we can transform the (augmented) matrix   to the (augmented) matrix   (  is of same size as  ), which is RREF of  , using a finite number of EROs, and we have  .

Proof. Outline: we can write   for some elementary matrices  , since   is RREF of   Then, it can be proved that   and  . It follows that   and thus  .

 

Remark.

  • if   is not invertible, we are not able to transform   to   (but RREF of   still exists, it is just not in the form of  )

Example. Let  . After performing EROs as follows:   we have  .

We have previously proved that   is non-invertible. Now, we verify that it is impossible to transform   to   in which  . We perform EROs as follows:   The last matrix is in RREF. We can see from the first ERO that, to make the  th entry zero, we will also make the  th entry zero. Thus, it is impossible to have such transformation.

 

Exercise. Let   be some elementary matrices of same size  .

Choose correct statement(s).

we can transform   to   in which   is of same size as  
we can transform   to   in which   are of same size as  
we can transform   to   in which   are of same size as  
we can transform   to   in which   are of same size  



Determinants

edit

Then, we will discuss the determinant, which allows characterizing some properties of a square matrix.

Definition. (Determinant) Let   be an   matrix. The determinant of  , denoted by   or  , is defined recursively as follows:

  • when  , we define  
  • when  , suppose we have defined the determinant of each   matrix. Let   be the   (sub)matrix obtained by deleting the  th row and the  th column of  . We define the  -cofactor of   by  . Then, we define

 

Remark.

  • minor is determinant of a square submatrix
  • the matrix   consisting of all cofactors is called cofactor matrix
  • the definition when   is also called the cofactor expansion (or Laplace expansion) along the first row.
  • another notation:  , and there are similar notations for matrices with different sizes
  • the signs of the cofactors are alternating. the signs of cofactor at the position of each entry of a matrix is shown below:

 

which looks like a 'chessboard' pattern.
  • we can observe from the above pattern that the sign of cofactors located at the main diagonal are always positive
  • this is the case since the row number   equals column number   in main diagonal, and so  
  • (some illustrations of deleting the row and column)

 

Example. (Formulas of determinants of   and   matrices)   and  

For the formula of determinants of   matrices, we have a useful mnemonic device for it, namely the Rule of Sarrus, as follows:

Proposition. (Rule of Sarrus) We can compute   matrix as shown in the following image:  , in which red arrows correspond to positive terms, and blue arrows correspond to negative terms. To be more precise, we can compute the matrix in the image by  

Proof. It follows from the formula in the above example.

 

Then, we will given an example about computing the determinant of a   matrix, which cannot be computed by the Rule of Sarrus directly.

Example.  

Proposition. (Determinant of zero matrix and identity matrix) The determinant of the zero matrix is  , and the determinant of the identity matrix is  .

Proof.

  •  
  •   (since the submatrix obtained after removing the 1st row and 1st column of   is  )
  • so, inductively,  

 

Indeed, we can compute a determinant by the cofactor expansion along an arbitrary row, as in the following theorem.

Theorem. (Cofactor expansion theorem) Let   be an   matrix with cofactors  . Then,   and   for each positive integer  .

Remark.

  • the first formula is cofactor expansion along the  th row, and the second formula is cofactor expansion along the  th column

Its proof (for the general case) is complicated, and thus is skipped.

Example. (Illustration of cofactor expansion theorem)   We use cofactor expansion along the 2nd column here.

 

Exercise. Let  .

1 Calculate  .

14
60
104
120
150

2 Calculate  .

14
60
104
120
150

3 Choose correct statement(s).

  for each matrix  
determinant of each matrix has only one possible value
if two matrices have the same determinant, then these two matrices are the same
determinant of submatrices of a matrix   must be smaller than the determinant of  


Then, we will discuss several properties of determinants that ease its computation.

Proposition. (Effects on determinant when performing EROs) Let   be a square matrix.

  • (type I ERO) If we interchange two rows of  , the determinant is multiplied by  ;
  • (type II ERO) if we multiply a row of   by a nonzero constant  , the determinant is multiplied by  ;
  • (type III ERO) if we add a multiple of a row of   to another row, the determinant remains unchanged.

Proof. Outline:

  • (type I ERO) e.g.

 

  • (type II ERO) e.g.

 

  • (type III ERO) e.g.

 

 

Remark.

  • for the property related to type II ERO,   can be zero, and the determinant is multiplied by zero. But, multiplying the row by   is not type II ERO if  
  • the determinant of matrix with two identical rows is zero because of the following corollary, which is based on the result about type I ERO
  • in view of this proposition, we have some strategies to compute determinant more easily, as follows:
  • apply type II EROs to take out common multiples of a row to reduce the numerical value of entries, so that the computation is easier
  • apply type III EROs to create more zeros in entries
  • apply cofactor expansion along a row or column with many zeros
  • apart from the EROs mentioned in the proposition, we can actually also apply elementary column operations (ECOs)
  • this is because determinant of matrix transpose equals that of the original matrix (it will be mentioned in the proposition about properties of determinants)
  • so, applying elementary column operations is essentially the same as applying EROs, by viewing the operations in different perspectives
  • we have similar notations for elementary column operations, with   (stand for row) replaced by   (stand for column)

Example. (Vandermonde matrix)  

Corollary. The determinant of a square matrix with two identical rows is zero.

Proof. Let   be a square matrix with two identical rows. If we interchange the two identical rows in  , the matrix is still the same, but its determinant is multiplied by  , i.e.   Alternatively, it can be proved by definition and induction.

 

 

Exercise.

Calculate  . (Hint: apply type III EROs or ECOs multiple times, without affecting the value of determinant, to ease computaion)

10
16
80
160
320


Then, we will introduce a convenient way to determine invertibility of a matrix. Before introducing the theorem, we have a lemma.

Lemma. For each elementary matrix   and matrix   ,  

Proof.

  • (type I:  )   and   (since we are interchanging rows)
  • (type II:  )   and   (since we are multiplying a row by nonzero constant)
  • (type III:  )   and   (since we are adding a multiple of a row to another row)

 

Theorem. (Determining invertibility by determinant) A square matrix is invertible if and only if its determinant is nonzero.

Proof.

  • only if part: by simplified invertible matrix theorem, a matrix   is invertible is equivalent to   is product of elementary matrices. So, if we denote the elementary matrices by  , then

 

  • if part: Let   in which   are elementary matrices and   is the RREF of  . This implies that

 

Since  , so  . Thus,   has no zero row (its determinant is zero otherwise). Since   is in RREF, it follows that   (since   is square matrix, if not all columns contain leading ones, then there is at least one zero row lying at its bottom, by definition of RREF). By simplified invertible matrix theorem,   is invertible.

 

After introducing this result, we will give some properties of determinants which can ease the computation of determinants.

Proposition. (Properties of determinants) Let   and   be square matrices of the same size. Then, the following hold.

  • (multiplicativity)  
  • (invariance of determinant after transpose)  
  • (determinant of matrix inverse is inverse of matrix determinant)  

Proof.

  • (multiplicativity) let   in which   are elementary matrices and   is the RREF of  . Then,

 

and

 

  • then, it remains to prove that  
  • if  , then  
  • if  , then the last row of   is a zero row, so  
  • the last row of   is also a zero row, so  
  • the result follows
  • (invariance of determinant after transpose) we may prove it by induction and cofactor expansion theorem, e.g.   vs.  
  • (determinant of matrix inverse is inverse of matrix determinant) using multiplicativity,

  (  since   is invertible)

 

Example. Let  . Since     is non-invertible. By simplified invertible matrix theorem, we also have the following results:

  • the homogeneous SLE   has not only trivial solution
  • the RREF of   is not  
  •   cannot be expressed as product of elementary matrices
 

Exercise.

Choose correct statement(s).

if   and   are non-invertible, then   is also non-invertible
if   and   are invertible, then   is also invertible
if   and   are non-invertible, then   is also non-invertible
if   and   are invertible, then   is also invertible
  for each matrix  
  for each matrix  
  for each matrix   and for each integer  


Then, we will introduce adjugate of matrix, which has a notable result related to computation of matrix inverse.

Definition. (Adjugate of matrix) Let   be an   matrix. The adjugate of  , denoted by  , is the   matrix whose  th entry is the cofactor  .

Remark.

  • it follows that   is the transpose of the cofactor matrix of  , i.e.  
  • it is more common to use this way to compute adjugate

Theorem. (Relationship between adjugate and determinant) Let   be an   matrix. Then,  

Proof. The proof is complicated, and so is skipped.

 

Corollary. (Formula of matrix inverse) If   is invertible, its inverse is given by  

Proof.  

 

Example. (Formula of   matrix inverse) Let  . Then,   That is, we can find the inverse of a   matrix by interchanging the  -th and  th entries, multiplying the  th and  th by   (without interchanging them), and multiplying the matrix by the reciprocal of its determinant.

Example. (Adjugate of non-invertible matrix) Let  . Then,   Also, we have  

 

Exercise.

Using matrix adjugate, solve the SLE  . It is given that this SLE has an unique solution.

Its unique solution is:
 

 

 


Then, we will introduce a result that allows us to compute the unique solution of SLE directly, namely Cramer's rule.

Theorem. (Cramer's rule) Let   be a SLE in which   is an invertible   matrix and   (we use this notation to denote  , a transpose of   matrix). Let  , and let   be the determinant of the matrix obtained by replacing the  th column of   by the column   for each  . The unique solution to the SLE is given by  

Proof. Since   is invertible, the unique solution of the SLE is  . Using the formula of matrix inverse, we have   Thus, for each  ,   (  are entries at the  th row of   (and at the  th column of the cofactor matrix of  ), so multiplying the entries as above gives the  -th entry of  , namely  )

 

Example. Consider the SLE   Since   the unique solution to this SLE is  

 

Exercise. Solve the SLE  .

Solution.

Since  , the matrix   is non-invertible. Thus, we cannot use Cramer's rule. Instead, we can transform the augmented matrix representing the SLE to RREF, as follows:   Since there is a leading one at the 4th column, the SLE is inconsistent.