1
$\begingroup$

I found a post with a question like this: enter link description here

Assume A is invertible, Let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $A$. Prove that $\lambda^{-1}$ is an eigenvalue of $A^{-1}$.

The answer goes:

given that $A$ is invertible, $Ax=\lambda x$, $A$ is invertible, and $\lambda\neq 0$, we have
$$Ax=\lambda x\implies A^{-1}Ax=A^{-1}\lambda x\implies x=\lambda A^{-1}x\implies \frac1\lambda x=A^{-1}x.$$

My question is why are we assuimg $\lambda \neq 0$. And for a $\lambda \neq 0$, can we always claim that it has an inverse?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If $\lambda =0$ them $\lambda^{-1}$ does not exist ; otherwise it exists. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Feb 20 '20 at 6:03
2
$\begingroup$

We can assume $\lambda \neq 0$ since $A$ is invertible if and only if $0$ is no eigenvalue of $A$. See this question for more details.

If $\lambda \neq 0$, then $\lambda$ always has a multiplicative inverse in the corresponding field, so $1/\lambda$ exists.

$\endgroup$

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.