# If the determinant of a matrix goes to infinity, does it means it has no inverse?

## Context

I have a linear time-invariant (single-input, single-output) system in state space representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-space_representation#Linear_systems):

$$\mathbf{x'}(t) = \mathbf{A}*\mathbf{x}(t) + \mathbf{B}*{u(t)}$$

In which:

• $\mathbf{x}(t)$ is a $n$-order vector of the variables of the system;

• the output $\mathbf{y}(t)$ is the last variable of $\mathbf{x}(t)$, i.e., $\mathbf{x}_{n} = \mathbf{y}$;

• $\mathbf{x'}(t)$ is a $n$-order vector of first order derivatives;

• the $n$ x $n$ square matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is sparse; it's non-zero elements are in the: first column, first line and main diagonal;

$$\mathbf{A} = \begin{bmatrix} {a}_{11} & {a}_{12} & {a}_{13} & \cdots & {a}_{1n} \\ {a}_{21} & {a}_{22} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ {a}_{31} & 0 & {a}_{33} & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {a}_{n1} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & {a}_{nn} \\ \end{bmatrix}$$

• the input $u(t)$ is a scalar;

• $\mathbf{B}$ is a sparse $n$-order vector which the only non-zero element is the first.

To solve the state-space, I thought of doing integration, line by line: $$\mathbf{x}(t) = {e}^{\mathbf{A}t}\mathbf{x}(0) + \int_{0}^{t}{e}^{\mathbf{A}(t-\tau)}\mathbf{B}u(\tau)d\tau$$

That would be very simple if ${\mathbf{A}}$ was a diagonal matrix. Because if it is, then so will be ${e}^{\mathbf{A}t}$; and every element of it will be ${e}^{{a}_{ii}t}$.

Where ${a}_{ii}$ is an element of ${\mathbf{A}}$.

## The question arises

So my question arised when I tried to diagonalize ${\mathbf{A}}$...

For ${\mathbf{A}}$ to be diagonalizable, it must be invertible, i.e., $$det({\mathbf{A}}) \neq 0$$

I went to check the determinant of ${\mathbf{A}}$, and I got: $${det(\mathbf{A})}=1.96*{10}^{16}$$

So, I am wondering: is ${\mathbf{A}}$ invertible? Can I diagonalize it?

Suppose that the determinant of ${\mathbf{A}}$ goes to infinity. Then the determinant of it's inverse will go to zero.

As if: $$det({\mathbf{A}}) = \infty$$ then $$det({\mathbf{A}^{-1}}) = 0$$

Therefore, the inverse of ${\mathbf{A}}$ is not invertible (This apparent contradiction is what is bugging me).

## A note:

Because the determinant was so high, the inverse will have it's elements with near-zero values. This will certainly cause numerical errors.

• You seem to be confusing two things here. Each individual matrix $A$ has a finite nonzero determinant, so it's invertible. If you're taking a limit of a sequence of matrices, then it totally depends on the sequence. – Greg Martin May 25 '16 at 0:20
• It may be helpful to look into the theory of unbounded operators on a Hilbert space. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbounded_operator – Nick Alger May 25 '16 at 0:28
• The phrasing of the question is very confusing. However, it appears that -- despite talking about a single matrix $A$ -- the OP is dealing with a sequence of matrices of increasing size... Or maybe there's a square matrix of infinite order and the OP is approximating its determinant step-by-step... Clarifying the question would help to find an answer for it. @NickAlger: your comment is right on! Since that's probably what we're discussing here. – zipirovich May 25 '16 at 0:30
• Remade the question. Now providing the context in which the question arised and why. – Pedro H. N. Vieira May 25 '16 at 2:17

I am interpreting the matrix $A$ to be a sequence of matrices, whose limit is taken entrywise, and $B$ likewise.
Consider $A_j=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}j&0\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. We have $det(A_j)=j$, which approaches infinity as $j\to\infty$. However, $A_j^{-1}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\frac{1}{j}&0\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, which approaches $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. This limit exists, and indeed has determinant $0$.
This is not a contradiction; each individual matrix in the sequence has an inverse. The limiting matrix of the $A_j$ sequence doesn't exist, as its entries would no longer be real numbers. Hence the fact that the limiting $B_j$ matrix isn't invertible doesn't matter.
• Although $10^{60}$ is indeed a large value, it is finite. It is not mathematically meaningful to say that a single number "approaches" infinity, no matter how large that number is. Approaches is used only for sequences of numbers. – vadim123 May 25 '16 at 17:29