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

I wish to enquire if it is possible to solve the below for $C$.

$$B^{-1}(x-\mu) = xc $$

Here obviously $B$ is an invertible matrix and both $c$ and $\mu$ are column vectors. Would the solution be $$x^{-1}B^{-1}(x-\mu) = c $$ is it possible to invert vectors ?

How about if it was the other way

$$B^{-1}(x-\mu) = cx $$

Is there any other way to do this ? Thanks in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
Do you mean for $C$ to be a scalar (or a 1x1 matrix)? That's the only way in which the right hand side product will be defined and of the same size as the left hand side. – Logan Maingi Oct 6 '12 at 23:16
@LoganMaingi Yes that is correct. Sorry i probably should have highlighted that. – Comic Book Guy Oct 6 '12 at 23:19
In general, you should try to denote different kind of objects with different kind of names, as suggestive as possible. So writing the equation as $B^{-1}(v-w)=cv$ would make it easier to understand, at least for me. You also usually write scalars on the left (in commutative context). – tomasz Oct 6 '12 at 23:22
@LoganMaingi On another thought i probably could define the problem with CX as well in which case C could really be non 1x1 matrix. For the sake of the argument i would love to find out how that could be solved. – Comic Book Guy Oct 6 '12 at 23:24
@tomasz Thanks for your suggestion i 'll update my question accordingly. – Comic Book Guy Oct 6 '12 at 23:27
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Vectors, in general, can't be inverted under matrix multiplication, as only square matricies can inverses. However, in the situation you've described, it's possible to compute $c$ anyway, assuming the equation is satisfied for some $c$. If we multiply both sides by $X^T$, the result is $x^T B^{-1} (x-\mu) = x^T x c = |x|^2 c$. Assuming x is not the zero vector (in which case any $c$ will still have $xc=0$ so any choice of $c$ should work), we just get $c= \frac{1}{|x|^2} x^T B^{-1} (x-\mu)$.

I must caution that the expression above for $c$ is defined even when there is no solution of the original equation, which will be almost all of the time for randomly generated vectors and matrices. Hence, if you are going to use it, you should check that this works by plugging what you get for $c$ back into the original expression and see if it works. Also, the choice of $x^T \over |x|^2$ is not unique; any row vector $v$ such that $vx=1$ will work equally well in the above expression.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks Mate that was very helpfull. – Comic Book Guy Oct 6 '12 at 23:35

There's no such thing as an inverse of a vector (unless the vector is actually a $1\times 1$ vector, of course).

Otherwise, there would be a solution $C$ for any $B,X,\mu$ (or at least any $X$ "invertible"), but that is obviously not the case (e.g. for any $X$ if we put $B=I$, $\mu$ linearly independent from $X$, there is no $C$).

share|cite|improve this answer
What about $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{H}$? these don't count as vectors? As real vectors complex numbers can be thought of as $2$-vectors, or quaternions as $4$-vectors. Am I wrong? – James S. Cook Oct 7 '12 at 0:41
@JamesS.Cook: Those are algebras over $\mathbb R$. The algebra structure on them are not really all that related to the additive structure. For example $\mathbb C$ is also an algebra over $\mathbb R$ with the multiplication $a*b = \overline{ab}$. – kahen Oct 7 '12 at 1:16
@JamesS.Cook: you're wrong in that the "representation" of complex numbers as 2-vectors and quaternions as 4-vectors has little to do with their respective multiplications (so far as I know...). Complex numbers and quaternions do have natural matrix representations as $2\times 2$ and $4\times 4$ real matrices (with associated natural actions on ${\bf R}^2,{\bf R}^4$, respectively), but not as vectors. – tomasz Oct 7 '12 at 1:53
I think I've even heard of complex numbers being defined as the centralizer of $O(2)$ as a subset of $M_{2\times 2}({\bf R})$, or something like that. :) – tomasz Oct 7 '12 at 2:03
@tomasz But, in the context of $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{H}$ multiplication and division of vectors does make sense. Because these are also division rings. Of course these are special cases and yes they do have natural representations as matrices, but that does not negate the fact that we can divide by these particular vectors. Perhaps there is more to your definition of vector than being an $n$-tuple with $n>1$? – James S. Cook Oct 7 '12 at 3:19

$$B^{-1}(x-\mu) = xc $$ If the matrix $B$ is known, why not write $$ (B^{-1} - cI)x = B^{-1}\mu $$ and then worry about whether $B^{-1}-cI$ is invertible?

share|cite|improve this answer
I think in the question $B,x,\mu$ are parameters, and $c$ is to be determined. – tomasz Oct 7 '12 at 0:38

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.