Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a small question regarding the adjugate matrix.

Suppose we have a square ($n \times n$) singular matrix with a rank of $n-1$.

Now I have two questions I'm trying to investigate:

  1. Is it possible that the adjugate matrix rank won't be changed? That is, if we have a $n \times n$ matrix with a rank of $n-1$ the adjugate will have the same rank ($n-1$).

  2. I know that in this case (rank of A is $n-1$) that $\mathrm{adj}(\mathrm{adj}(A))$ is $0$. I don't understand why. Is there any relation between these two questions?

Thanks alot, Guy

share|improve this question
    
2. is answered e.g. in math.stackexchange.com/questions/92837/… –  Julian Kuelshammer Oct 20 '12 at 13:21
    
I was wondering about one adjugate matrix property. I know that If $A$ is symmetric so is $adj(A)$. I was thinking to myself, is the opposite direction is also TRUE? If $adj(A)$ is symmetric then $A$ is symmetric ? Thank you. –  SyndicatorBBB Oct 29 '12 at 8:48
    
If $A$ is invertible, yes. –  user26857 Oct 29 '12 at 10:07

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

For the first question use the following two facts:

1) ${rank}(AB)\geq {rank}(A)+{rank}(B)-n$, for a proof, see e.g. http://ysharifi.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/rank-of-the-product-of-two-matrices/

2) $A\cdot adj(A)=det(A)\cdot I_n$.

share|improve this answer
    
@Guy: $adj(det(A)\cdot I)=det(A)^{n-1}$ can be calculated by hand just by the definition –  Julian Kuelshammer Oct 20 '12 at 14:22
    
@Guy: There are not that many products of matrices around where you can apply 1). Maths is a lot about trying it out by oneself –  Julian Kuelshammer Oct 20 '12 at 14:23
    
Okay I proved the adj(det(A)*I) identity. Thank you. I'll keep trying the to prove the second one. It seems much harder. never used the first fact you gave me. –  SyndicatorBBB Oct 20 '12 at 14:39
    
Well I'll show you my way if you can just point out what is missing. First of all let's assume rankA = n-1 then: n-1 = rankA >= rank(A*adjA) >= rankA + rank(adjA) - n --> n-1 >= rankA + rank(adjA) - n --> n-1 >= n-1 + rank(adjA) - n --> n >= rank(adjA) So not only that I didn't get what I want to prove (rank(adjA)) <= n-2 but I also got a wrong prove. rank(adjA) cannot be n. It shows it very bad here see my response below. –  SyndicatorBBB Oct 20 '12 at 14:54
    
@Guy: You have to use 2) in the first line. –  Julian Kuelshammer Oct 20 '12 at 15:04

Your Answer

 
discard

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.