Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So I'm studying linear algebra and one of the self-study exercises has a set of true or false questions. One of the question is this:

If $A^2 = I$ (Identity Matrix) Then $A = \pm I$ ?

I'm pretty sure it is true but the answer say it's false. How can this be false (maybe its a typography error on the book)?. Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
Try $$ A = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}. $$ – Dylan Moreland Feb 5 '12 at 20:13
I'd point out that it is true if you're working with $1$-by-$1$ matrices (over $\mathbb C$, or any other integral domain). But for $n \geq 2$ the ring of $n$-by-$n$ matrices over any non-trivial ring is not an integral domain: this means that $(A+I)(A-I) = 0$ doesn't necessarily imply that $A + I = 0 $ or $A - I = 0$. – Matt Feb 5 '12 at 20:30
possible duplicate of Finding number of matrices whose square is the identity matrix – Jonas Meyer Feb 5 '12 at 20:56
There's an entire family of so-called involutory matrices. Look up Householder reflectors, for instance. – J. M. Feb 6 '12 at 5:11
up vote 28 down vote accepted

A simple counterexample is $$A = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} $$ We have $A \neq \pm I$, but $A^{2} = I$.

share|cite|improve this answer

In dimension $\geq 2$ take the matrix that exchanges two basis vectors ("a transposition")

share|cite|improve this answer
If you want to exchange the (standard) basis vectors $e_{i}$ and $e_{j}$ ($1 \leq i,j \leq n$), then use the matrix $A = [m_{ij}]$ with $m_{kk} = 1, k\neq i,j$, $m_{ij} = m_{ji} = 1$ and $m_{kl} = 0$ for all other values of $k$ and $l$. For example, if you want $e_2$ and $e_3$ exhanged in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, take $$A = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$$ It is clear that such a matrix always satisfies $A^2 = I$, since applying it twice always gets you back to where you started. – Martin Wanvik Feb 5 '12 at 21:01
Thank you @Martin Wanvik, pretty clear explanation. – Randolf Rincón Fadul Feb 5 '12 at 21:52

I know $2·\mathbb C^2$ many counterexamples, namely

$$A=c_1\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\ 1&0 \end{pmatrix}+c_2\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\ 0&-1 \end{pmatrix}\pm\sqrt{c_1^2+c_2^2\pm1}\begin{pmatrix} 0&-1\\ 1&0 \end{pmatrix},$$

see Pauli Matrices $\sigma_i$.

These are all such matrices and can be written as $A=\vec e· \vec \sigma$, where $\vec e^2=\pm1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

The following matrix is a conterexample $ A = \left( {\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} } \right) $

share|cite|improve this answer

"Most" (read: diagonalizable) matrices can be viewed simply as a list of numbers -- its eigenvalues -- in the right basis. When doing arithmetic with just this matrix (or with other matrices that diagonalize in the same basis), you just do arithmetic on the eigenvalues.

So, to find diagonalizable solutions to $A^2 = I$, we just need to write down a matrix whose eigenvalues satisfy $\lambda^2 = 1$ -- and any such matrix will do.

When thinking about matrices in this way -- as a list of independent numbers -- it makes it easy to think your way through problems like this.

share|cite|improve this answer
Every matrix satisfying $A^2=I$ is diagonalizable, because either it is $\pm I$ or its minimal polynomial is $(x-1)(x+1)$. The general solution is obtained by taking all diagonal matrices with entries $\pm 1$ on the diagonal and conjugating by invertible matrices. – Jonas Meyer Feb 6 '12 at 5:03
Jonas Meyer, this is only true if $char F \ne 2$. Otherwise, there are such matrices which are not diagonalizable, – the L Feb 6 '12 at 8:18
@Jonas: That's a good point to mention as an appendix, but dealing properly with non-diagonalizable matrices in this fashion is somewhat more sophisticated. The only reason I mentioned the word was so that I didn't mislead Randolf into thinking this method works (unmodified) for all matrices; e.g. that the argument I gave isn't sufficient to tell us that this (or any!) equation has only diagonalizable solutions. – Hurkyl Feb 6 '12 at 9:53
@anonymous: Good point, e.g. $\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\ 0&1\end{bmatrix}$. @@Hurkyl: I agree, it is best as an appendix. I appreciate your caution, but wanted to point out that your method does lead to the general solution (in the characteristic $0$ case that the OP is probably working in). – Jonas Meyer Feb 6 '12 at 15:49

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.