My intuition tells me that i have to use the rank nullity theorem

Rank(A) + dim(ker(A)) = n

if Rank(A) = n, then that implies that dim(ker(A)) = 0 which means that the ker(A) only has the zero vector... but how can i use this information to prove that A is non-singular/invertible?

This is just a guess on my part, but if Rank(A) is n, then that must mean that the row reduced echelon form(RREF) of A is the identity matrix because the rank of A is the number of NON ZERO rows in the RREF(A), and Rank(A) = n implies that there are no zero rows in RREF(A)

This is as much as i can do on my own

(Please note, i have looked at other posts in Math Exchange that ask the same question, but the answers are too abstract and confusing for me, i just need someone to explain this in steps and ,if possible, to explain this in a more simple way)

  • $\begingroup$ Do you know the defintion of a non-singular matrix? $\endgroup$ – Qudit Dec 15 '17 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ a matrix that is invertible and has a determinant of 0 $\endgroup$ – Soon_to_be_code_master Dec 15 '17 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Soon_to_be_code_master Let's do it without determinant, which involves to many calculations as a multilinear function.Note that in a matrix, row operations doesn't affect the linear (in)dependence of the columns.(you're just operating on two entries,leaving the rest fixed.) Having full (row/column) rank in a square matrix means that you have all columns are linearly independent.So $Ax=0$ can have only trivial solutions.Now, to find the right inverse $A^{-1}$, we do it column by column.In the augmented matrix $[A\mid e_i]$ with $n+1$ column vectors $\Bbb{F}^n$, can it be linearly independent? $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Dec 15 '17 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Soon_to_be_code_master "A matrix that is invertible and has determinant of 0" Such a matrix does not exist. A matrix that is invertbile has nonzero determinant and a matrix with determinant zero is non-invertible. Your question has to do with a part of the invertible matrix theorem. It is unclear which results you have already proven and what tools you have available to you unless you tell us yourself. $\endgroup$ – JMoravitz Dec 15 '17 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ You cite the rank-nullity theorem. How about $dim(\ker(A))=0\iff A$ is one to one (injective)? How about $Rank(A)=n\iff A$ is surjective (for $A$ a linear transformation from $\Bbb R^m$ to $\Bbb R^n$)? How do you have "non-singular matrix" defined? (your earlier definition is incorrect). How do you have "invertible matrix" defined? $\endgroup$ – JMoravitz Dec 15 '17 at 22:05

If $\ker A=\{0\}$, then the matrix is injective, and since its image is $n$ dimensional, it is surjective, so it is invertible.

Then $$1=\det(I)=\det (AA^{-1})=\det(A)\det(A^{-1})$$

so $\det(A) \neq 0$.

  • $\begingroup$ My professor did not talk about matrices being either injective or surjective. But the way that you explained this, it seems to me that a matrix must be both surjective and injective to be invertible. Can you elaborate on why a matrix is injective if its kernel only has the zero vector and on why the matrix is surjective if its image is n dimensional? $\endgroup$ – Soon_to_be_code_master Dec 16 '17 at 0:37
  • $\begingroup$ What is your definition of rank? Are you familiar with linear transformations? $\endgroup$ – Andres Mejia Dec 16 '17 at 0:46
  • $\begingroup$ my definition of a rank is the number of non zero rows in a row reduced echelon form of a matrix, i'm not too familiar with linear transformations $\endgroup$ – Soon_to_be_code_master Dec 16 '17 at 1:02

$A$ is non-singular if it is invertable.

If $A$ is invertable it is a bijection.

That is $A\mathbf u = A\mathbf v \iff \bf u=v$ (otherwise how does the matrix inverse map a vector in the image back to the original vector?)

Suppose $A$ has a non-trivial kernel.

Then there is a vector $\bf x \ne 0$ such that $A\bf x = 0$ But $A\bf 0 = 0,$ which means that $A$ is not a bijection, and $A$ is not invertable.

This property, singular matrices have a non-trivial kernel, is frequently very definition of singular, with it being non-invertable and having determinant $= 0$ as a consequence.


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.