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

The problem is from Algebra by Artin, Chapter 1, Miscellaneous Problems, Exercise 8. I have been trying for a long time now to solve it but I am unsuccessful.

Let $A,B$ be $m \times n$ and $n \times m$ matrices. Prove that $I_m - AB$ is invertible if and only if $I_n - BA$ is invertible.

Please provide with only a hint.

share|cite|improve this question
Check out sylvester determinant theorem on Google. – Gautam Shenoy Nov 15 '12 at 6:29
Thank You. It makes the proof quite obvious now. :D – Jayesh Badwaik Nov 15 '12 at 6:32
If A, B are row/column vectors, then you can actually show this with induction. – Per Alexandersson Nov 15 '12 at 7:03
A related post on MathOverflow:… – Martin Sleziak Dec 17 '15 at 5:29
up vote 12 down vote accepted

Another method:

Let $C= {(I_m - AB)}^{-1}$. The matrix $BCA$ is $n\times n$.

$(I_n - BA)(BCA) = BCA - BABCA $

$= B(C - ABC)A$ $= B[(I_m - AB)C]A$ $= B(I_m)A\ $ (by definition of $C$)

$= BA$


$(I_n-BA)(BCA + I_n) = (I_n - BA) (BCA) + (I_n -BA) = BA + (I_n-BA) = I_n$

So, we get that the inverse of $I_n - BA$ is $I_n +BCA$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is how I did the problem the first time, but then I forgot how I did it and was stuck. :P Thanks :-) – Jayesh Badwaik Nov 15 '12 at 7:41

There's no real need to actually invoke Sylvester's determinant theorem (although that certainly is much faster).

First show that the (non-zero) eigenvalues of $AB$ and the eigenvalues of $BA$ coincide. If you take the determinant of $I_m - AB$, then you have the characteristic polynomial of $AB$ evaluated at $\lambda = 1$. It follows that the determinant is zero if and only if $1$ is an eigenvalue of $AB$ if and only if $1$ is an eigenvalue of $BA$ if and only if $\det(I_n - BA) = 0$.

Note that a slight adaptation of this argument also provides a proof of Sylvester's determinant theorem different from the one given on Wikipedia.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for another nice answer. – Jayesh Badwaik Nov 15 '12 at 6:53
I like this proof so much better than the others. – Sahiba Arora Nov 8 '15 at 12:59

Hint $\ $ It's a consequence of Sylvester's determinant identity $\rm\:det(1 + AB) = det(1+BA),\:$ which has a very simple universal proof: over the polynomial ring $\rm\ \mathbb Z[A_{\,i\,j},B_{\,i\,j}\,]\ $ take the determinant of $\rm\ (1+AB)\ A = A\ (1+BA)\ \ $ then cancel $\rm\ det(A)\ \ $ (which is valid since the ring is a domain). $\ \ $ Extend to non-square matrices by padding appropriately with $0$'s and $1$'s to get square matrices. Note that the proof is purely algebraic - it does not require any topological notions (e.g. density).

Alternatively $\ $ Proceed by way of Schur decomposition, namely

$$\rm\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm A \\ \rm B & 1 \end{array} \right]\ =\ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm 0 \\ \rm B & 1 \end{array} \right]\ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm 0 \\ \rm 0 & \rm 1-BA \end{array} \right]\ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm A \\ \rm 0 & 1 \end{array} \right]$$

$$\rm\phantom{\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm B \\ \rm A & 1 \end{array} \right]}\ =\ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm A \\ \rm 0 & 1 \end{array} \right]\ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1-AB & \rm 0 \\ \rm 0 & \rm 1 \end{array} \right]\ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \rm 0 \\ \rm B & 1 \end{array} \right]$$

See my posts in this sci.math thread on 09 Nov 2007 for further discussion.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think your first method is wrong as it assumes the non-singularity of Matrix A, which need not be the case. I-AB can be non singular even if either A or B or both are singular. – hitch hiker Sep 8 '13 at 13:30
Therefore the "universal". See and if you don't know how that works. – darij grinberg Sep 8 '13 at 21:08
@hitchhiker There is no such error in these universal proofs. Darij posted some expository references on you in the prior comment. – Bill Dubuque Dec 15 '13 at 4:32

We know that a square matrix $M$ is invertible if and only if $$\{\vec x; \vec x M = \vec 0\}=\{\vec 0\}.$$ (The corresponding homogeneous linear system has only trivial solution. The corresponding linear map has trivial kernel.)

So the claim $$I_m-AB\text{ is invertible }\qquad\implies\qquad I_n-BA\text{ is invertible}$$ is equivalent to $$\{\vec x\in F^m; \vec x(I-AB)=\vec 0\}=\{\vec0\} \qquad\implies\qquad \{\vec y\in F^n; \vec y(I-BA)=\vec 0\}=\{\vec0\}.$$ (Where $F$ denotes the base field.)

Proof. So let us assume that $I-AB$ is invertible, i.e., that $\vec x=\vec 0$ is the only vector such that $\vec x(I-AB)=\vec 0$.

Let $\vec y(I-BA)=\vec 0$.

Then we get $$\vec y=\vec yBA\tag{1}$$ and, consequently $\vec y B = \vec y BAB$. This is equivalent to $$\vec yB(I-AB)= \vec 0.\tag{2}$$ This means that $\vec yB=\vec 0$, since $I-AB$ is invertible.

From (1) we now get that $\vec y=\vec yBA=\vec 0A=\vec 0$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.