1
$\begingroup$

Just for fun, I was solving few linear algebra problems. Hence, I came across the fact that-

  1. $AB$ is singular $\Leftrightarrow $ $A$ or $B$ is(/are) singular.
  2. $AB$ is not singular $\Leftrightarrow $ $A$ and $B$ both are not singular.

Notation: $A, B \in \mathbb{F}^{n\times n}$

My question is that let say we have proved the $2$nd fact, does it automatically imply the $1$st fact? Or, I have to prove it separately.

On a footnote, I have proved the second fact using Sylvester's rank inequality. Is there any other elegant way to do it?

Just for the preciseness, you can not use the fact that $\det(AB)=\det(A)\det(B)$ because you have to prove it before you use it, and for the proof let say you need the above mentioned facts.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Since we do not have all the classical theorem (as I understand it) what is the definition of being singular here? (BTW Proposition 1 and 2 are strictly equivalent from a logical point of vue : $X\Leftrightarrow Y \text{ or }Z$ is logically equivalent to $not(X)\Leftrightarrow not(Y) \text{ and }not(Z)$ $\endgroup$ – Clément Guérin Dec 8 '15 at 8:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right : $(P\iff A \text{ or } B)\iff (\text{ no }P\iff\text{ no }A\text{ and }\text{ no }B)$ using de Morgan's laws. $\endgroup$ – Balloon Dec 8 '15 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ClémentGuérin you can use the rank definition. Also, you can use the fact that determinant of a singular matrix is $0$. But as I mentioned, you can not use the result that $\det(AB)=\det(A)\det(B)$. $\endgroup$ – Rajat Dec 8 '15 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have the rank equality? hence using "singular is equivalent to have a non-trivial element in the kernel"... $\endgroup$ – Clément Guérin Dec 8 '15 at 8:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just a word about spelling: in English adjectives (like "singular") do not change form for the plural (not "matrices are singulars", but "matrices are singular"). And also: you can say "$A$ or $B$ is singular" without need to use "is/are". $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Dec 8 '15 at 10:02
2
$\begingroup$

On the logic part of the question...

Let $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ be propositions respectively that $AB$ is singular, $A$ is singular, and $B$ is singular. Statement 2 is:

\begin{equation}\neg X \leftrightarrow \neg Y \wedge \neg Z\end{equation}

Statement 1 is:

\begin{equation} X \leftrightarrow Y \vee Z \end{equation}

These are logically equivalent (simple application of De Morgan's laws).

On the singular question...

Direction 1: If $B^{-1}$ exists and $A^{-1}$ exists then $B^{-1}A^{-1}$ is an inverse of $AB$.

Direction 2: If $(AB)^{-1}$ is an inverse of AB. Then:

  • $(AB)^{-1}(AB) = I$

    $((AB)^{-1}A)B = I$ hence inverse of $B$ exists (where $B^{-1} = (AB)^{-1}A$)

  • $(AB)(AB)^{-1} = I$

    $A(B(AB)^{-1}) = I$ hence inverse of $A$ exists

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

$A \in M(n,F)$ is singular iff any of the following equivalent conditions are met.

$A$ is not injective (has non-trivial kernel)

$A$ is not surjective(image rank less than domain rank)

$A$ has zero determinant

$A$ has $0$ as an eigenvalue

$A$ has no inverse

$A$ is a zero divisor

in validating the two logically equivalent statements you present concerning products, it is to some extent a matter of taste which route you take. for example if $AB$ has zero as an eigenvalue, let $v$ be an eigenvector, so $ABv=0$. clearly if $Bv \ne 0$ then $Bv$ is a non-trivial eigenvector for $A$ with the eigenvalue $0$

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

These statements are literally just contrapositives of each other. If you prove one, you get the other free of charge.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Assume that $AB$ is singular then there exists $v\in Ker(AB)$ with $v\neq 0$ (since the kernel is not trivial), it follows that $ABv=0$ then either $Bv=0$ and then $B$ is singular either $Bv\neq 0$ but $Bv$ is in the kernel of $A$ so $A$ is singular.

Assume that $B$ is singular, then take $v\in Ker(B)$ which is not trivial, clearly $ABv=0$ and $v$ is a non-trivial element in $Ker(AB)$ whence $AB$ is singular.

Assume that $A$ is singular then $rk(A)<n$ but $rk(AB)\leq rk(A)$ (trivial inequality) so that $rk(AB)<n$ and $AB$ is singular.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I used the same method to prove my $2$nd fact. $\endgroup$ – Rajat Dec 8 '15 at 9:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.