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

If $A_{m\times n}$ is a matrix such that $\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}=0$ for each $i=1,2,…,m,$ then why the columns of $A$ are linearly dependent set, and hence $\operatorname {rank}(A)<n$?

share|cite|improve this question
It's hard to understand what you wrote. LaTeXize it. – DonAntonio Sep 22 '13 at 12:57
She tried, @DonAntonio, but was missing braces around subscripts and bounds of summation, making it difficult to make out. Hopefully fixed (there was also some copy and paste inserted in dollar signs, so I'm hoping I got the summation correctly). – amWhy Sep 22 '13 at 13:00
@amWhy, thank you for fixing my question, it's exactly what I tried to wrote. – Diane Vanderwaif Sep 22 '13 at 13:06
You're welcome, @Diane. Note that when there is more than one character in a subscript, you need to enclose the subscript in braces. E.g. $A_{m \times n}$ = A_{m \times n} – amWhy Sep 22 '13 at 13:14
up vote 0 down vote accepted

If $m < n$, then

$$\operatorname{rank} A \le \min \{m,n\} = m < n.$$

Let us now assume that $m \ge n$. Note that

$$A \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} = 0_{m \times 1},$$

Aiming for a contradiction, we assume that $A$ if of a full rank (i.e., $\operatorname{rank} A = n$). That means that $A$ has a submatrix $B$ of order $n$ such that $B$ is of a full rank (made of the linearly independent rows in $A$), i.e., $B$ is invertible. We know that

$$B \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} = 0_{n \times 1},$$

which is a contradiction with the invertibility of $B$, so $A$ is not of a full rank.

share|cite|improve this answer

Hint: the equation that is given actually gives an explicit linear dependence relation between the columns.

share|cite|improve this answer
Since I am a pedantic kind of mathematician, I should add: provided that $n>0$, i.e., provided there are any columns at all. For $n=0$ that statement to prove is wrong: no columns makes an (empty) linearly independent set. But you may forget I said that. – Marc van Leeuwen Sep 22 '13 at 13:05

I assume $m=n$ just to make it look good .

we have $\sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij}=0$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$

i..e, $\sum_{j=1}^m a_{1j}+\sum_{j=1}^m a_{2j}+\dots+\sum_{j=1}^m a_{mj}=0$

i.e., $(a_{11}+a_{12}+\dots+a_{1m})+(a_{21}+a_{22}+\dots+a_{2m})+\dots +(a_{m1}+a_{m2}+\dots+a_{mm})=0$

i.e., $(a_{11}+a_{21}+\dots+a_{m1})+(a_{12}+a_{22}+\dots+a_{m2})+\dots +(a_{1m}+a_{2m}+\dots+a_{mm})=0$

Do you see "the next step" would conclude that columns are linearly dependent. (??)

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.