When you solve the equation $\mathbf{Ax}=\mathbf{y}$ where $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{5}$, $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{4}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ is a $4 \times 5$ matrix with a right inverse, I understand that the $\mathbf{x}$ is $\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{y}$ but how come it can happen that $\mathbf{x}$ is not $\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{y}$ but some right inverse times $\mathbf{y}$? So if $\mathbf{X}$ were a right inverse to $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{x}$ is $\mathbf{X}\mathbf{y}$?

I would like some algebraic proof such as for the fact that $\mathbf{x}$ is $\mathbf{H}^{-1}\mathbf{y}$ for some square matrix $\mathbf{H}$ $$ \mathbf{H}^{-1}\mathbf{Hx} = (\mathbf{H}^{-1}\mathbf{H})\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{I}_4 \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{H}^{-1}\mathbf{y} $$

I do not think this is valid statement $$ \mathbf{AXx} = (\mathbf{AX})\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{I}_4 \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{X}\mathbf{y} $$ so that does probably not that why $\mathbf{x}$ in my case is a the result of post-multiplying a right inverse of $\mathbf{A}$ by $\mathbf{y}$

To give details about my case where $\mathbf{x}$ is $\mathbf{X}\mathbf{y}$?, I have $$ \mathbf{A} = \left[\begin{array}{rrrrr} 2&-4&-1&-3&2\\ -1&2&1&0&1\\ 1&-2&-1&-3&-1\\ -1&4&-1&0&5 \end{array}\right] $$ and $\mathbf{y}$ is a column vector of four unknowns. Then I have the solution for $\mathbf{x}$ as $$ \mathbf{x} = \left[\begin{array}{r} x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ x_4\\ x_5 \end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{r} 3y_1+y_4-3y_3+y_2-15t\\ \frac{1}{2}y_4+y_1-y_3+\frac{1}{2}y_2-6t\\ -y_3+y_1+y_2-4t\\ -\frac{1}{3}y_2-\frac{1}{3}y_3\\ t \end{array}\right] \quad \text{where } t \in \mathbb{R} $$ For exapmle when $t = 0$, we have that $$ \mathbf{x} = \left[\begin{array}{r} x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ x_4\\ x_5 \end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{r} 3y_1+y_4-3y_3+y_2-15 \cdot 0\\ \frac{1}{2}y_4+y_1-y_3+\frac{1}{2}y_2-6 \cdot 0\\ -y_3+y_1+y_2-4 \cdot 0\\ -\frac{1}{3}y_2-\frac{1}{3}y_3\\ 0 \end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{rrrr} 3&1&-3&1\\ 1&\frac{1}{2}&-1&\frac{1}{2}\\ 1&1&-1&0\\ 0&-\frac{1}{3}&-\frac{1}{3}&0\\ 0&0&0&0 \end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{r} y_1\\ y_2\\ y_3\\ y_4 \end{array}\right] $$ We now have $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{Xy}$ where $\mathbf{X}$ is a right inverse to $\mathbf{A}$ - so why this relationship ($\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{Xy}$ with $\mathbf{X}$ being a right inverse)?

  • $\begingroup$ So your question is - If $Ax=y$ then does there exist $X$ such that $x=Xy$ and $AX=1$? $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen May 17 '19 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ In my case there does exist such an $\mathbf{X}$ and I want to understand why. $\endgroup$ – Fac Pam May 17 '19 at 18:40

Claim. Let $V,W$ be vector spaces, $A\colon V\to W$ and $B\colon W\to V$ be linear maps with $AB=1_W$. Also suppose that $Ax=y$ for certain $x\in V$, $y\in W$ with $y\ne 0$. Then there exists a linear map $B'\colon W\to V$ such that $AB'=1_W$ and $x=B'y$.

Proof: It suffices to find $C\colon W\to V$ such that $AC=0$ and $Cy=x-By$ as we then can take $B'=B+C$. Let $v:=x- By$. Note that $v\in\ker A$. By extending $y$ to a to a basis of $W$, we find a linear map $W\to \ker A$ that maps $y\mapsto v$. Composed with the inclusion $\ker A\to V$, we obtain a linear map $C\colon W\to V$ such that $AC=0$ and $Cy=x-By$. $\square$

Remark. If we allow $y=0$, the claim is no longer true because there may exist non-zero $x$ with $Ax=0$.

  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry but I do not really understand. How does this explain why $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{Xy}$ with $\mathbf{X}$ being a right inverse to $\mathbf{A}$? $\endgroup$ – Fac Pam May 17 '19 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ I am sure you are correct but I can't really make sense of it $\endgroup$ – Fac Pam May 17 '19 at 19:31

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.