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

Question: A Linear transformation $T: \mathbb R^4 \to \mathbb R^4$ is represented by the matrix $$\mathbf A=\begin{pmatrix} \\1&-1&2&3 \\ 2 & -3 & 4 & 5\\ 5 & -6 & 10 & 14\\ 4 & -5 & 8 & 11 \end{pmatrix}$$ (i) Show that the $\dim\big(R(\mathbf A)\big) =2$.
(ii) Let M be a given $4\times 4$ (non-singular) matrix and let $\mathcal S$ be the vector space consisting of vectors in the form of MAx where $x \in \mathbb R^4$. Show that if M is non-singular then $\dim\big(\mathcal S\big) =2$.

The first part is pretty straight-forward. All one needs to do is compute $\operatorname{rref}(\mathbf A)$.

But it is the second part that has stomped me (and for quite some time now). I did come up with a solution but it seemed very cheap to me and it didn't really satisfy me completely.
What I tried was to write A in the form, $$\mathbf A=\Big [\begin{matrix} \vec p_1& \vec p_2&\vec f_1&\vec f_2 \\ \end{matrix}\Big]$$ Where $\vec p_1$ and $\vec p_2$ are the columns corresponding to the pivot variables (there are $2$ pivot variables, since $\dim\big(R(\mathbf A)\big) =2$) and $ \vec f_1$ and $\vec f_2$ are the columns corresponding to the free variables.
Now if M be any $4\times 4$ matrix in the form, $$\mathbf M=\Big[ \begin{matrix} \vec c_1& \vec c_2& \vec c_3& \vec c_4 \\ \end{matrix}\Big]$$ Where $\vec c_1, \vec c_2, \vec c_3$ and $\vec c_4$ are the four columns of M, then $$\mathbf {MAx}=\Big[ \begin{matrix} \vec c_1& \vec c_2& \vec c_3& \vec c_4 \\ \end{matrix}\Big] \cdot x_1\vec p_1+x_2\vec p_2+ x_3\vec f_1+x_4\vec f_2 $$ I don't know what to do after this.

Is this apprach correct? If yes, how do I proceed from here? If not, where is it that I am going wrong and how do I solve this problem?

Any Help is much appreciated!
Thanks in Advance!

share|cite|improve this question
What are pivot and free variables again? I don't think we need them to answer this question. Also, it looks like your $MA$ is just a row vector. I would approach it like: 1)Show that the rows of $MA$ are linear combinations of rows of $A$, so $r(MA)\le r(A)$. 2) Show that the the rows of $A$ that are linearly independent remain so after being multiplied by $M$, so $r(MA)\ge2$. – Jyrki Lahtonen May 17 '12 at 10:10
$MA$ can't be a row vector. I don't think multiplication of two $4\times 4$ matrices can yield a row vector? – funktor May 17 '12 at 10:13
I agree, it cannot. But before your edit $MA$ looked like a list of four numbers. That's why I asked :-) But it has been fixed now. Sorry about being a bit trigger-happy. – Jyrki Lahtonen May 17 '12 at 10:15
Oh! My bad then :) – funktor May 17 '12 at 10:16
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I didn't read your proof thoroughly so I can't say whether it will work. What I can tell is that it is way to complicated (and confusing). Maybe you should think about the question differently. The statement is a special case of the proposition:

If $M$ is non-singular then $rank(MA)=rank(A)$

If you have a basis of $Im(A)$, can you show that $M$ takes this basis to a basis of $S$? Hint: You need non-singularity only to show that the images of the base vectors are linearly independant.

share|cite|improve this answer
Yes I do agree with you on that. The proof is very messy. I don't have much experience with proof writing. The thing is I am still in high school and I am slowly getting the hang of it:) – funktor May 17 '12 at 10:21
Then you are doing quite advanced stuff! No worries you will get a hang of it pretty quickly if you keep working on it. Is my answer helpful? – Simon Markett May 17 '12 at 10:24

That approach doesn’t look very promising; at best it’s going to be very messy. Try showing that $\mathbf{MA}$ and $\mathbf A$ have the same null space when $\mathbf M$ is non-singular; that’s not hard, and it implies that they have the same rank.

share|cite|improve this answer

Isn't it enough to say that non-singular matrix preserves linear independence?

share|cite|improve this answer
Could you elaborate a little bit? – funktor May 17 '12 at 10:17
Since you had $Ax$ of dimention 2, then it had a two vector basis. Images of those base vectors by $M$ are linearly independent in $MAx$ and you can show that they form a maximal set of independent vectors by contradiction, using the fact that $M$ is invertible. I can elaborate more if you wish, just tell me on which part. :) – Łukasz Maciejewski May 17 '12 at 15:08

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.