Why is that if every row of a matrix sums to $1$ then the rows of its inverse matrix sum to $1$ too?

For example, consider

$$A=\begin{pmatrix} 1/3 & 2/3 \\ 3/4 & 1/4 \end{pmatrix}$$

then its inverse is

$$A^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix} -3/5 & 8/5 \\ 9/5 & -4/5 \end{pmatrix},$$

which satisfies the condition. Is it true for every such matrix?


Let $v = (1, 1, \ldots , 1)'$ be a column vector of all $1$s. Then the rows of $A$ adding to $1$ is equivalent to saying $Av = v$. So when $A$ is invertible, we will have $$A^{-1}v = A^{-1}Av = v$$ Thus $A^{-1}$ has rows summing to $1$ as well. (Note that $A$ will not always be invertible.)

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ To extend the assertion we can say that property of row sum equal 1 holds also for any matrix $A^k$ ($A$ invertible) when $k$ is an integer $(...,-2,-1,0,1,2, ..)$ $\endgroup$ – Widawensen Jan 25 '18 at 10:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The name of such a matrix is a right stochastic matrix (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_matrix), and it has a few more interesting properties. $\endgroup$ – Victor May Jan 25 '18 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @VictorMay The condition here is more general than that of stochastic. These entries don't need to be non-negative. $\endgroup$ – John Coleman Jan 25 '18 at 17:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @VictorMay This is probably one of those cases where different definitions can be found in different sources, e.g.: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/right_stochastic_matrix . Some authors require it, some don't. I suspect that most do (since it is frequently defined in the context of Markov chains where the elements are probabilities) but haven't done any systematic survey. I was mistaken in assuming that the definition that I was familiar with was universal. $\endgroup$ – John Coleman Jan 25 '18 at 23:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David That meshes with my impression. Perhaps I was trying too hard to be diplomatic. I did find a couple of definitions online which didn't explicitly contain the phrase "nonnegative" (which caused me to think that Victor's use is not unprecedented) but I suspect now that those cases were just somewhat sloppy and assumed nonnegative as being clear from context. Nonnegative is both natural and at least nearly universal in the definition. $\endgroup$ – John Coleman Jan 30 '18 at 20:45

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.