For any $2$ x $2$ matrix $A$, does there always exist a $2$ x $2$ matrix $B$ such that det($A+B$) = det($A$)...
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
For each invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $A$, does there exist an invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $B$ such that the following conditions hold?
(1) $A + B$ is invertible
(2) det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$)
I know that for $2$ x $2$ matrices det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$) + tr($A$)tr($B$) - tr($AB$). So this means tr($A$)tr($B$) = tr($AB$). Right now I am having trouble proving that there exists a $B$ that satisfies this equation as well as condition (1).
linear-algebra
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
For each invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $A$, does there exist an invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $B$ such that the following conditions hold?
(1) $A + B$ is invertible
(2) det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$)
I know that for $2$ x $2$ matrices det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$) + tr($A$)tr($B$) - tr($AB$). So this means tr($A$)tr($B$) = tr($AB$). Right now I am having trouble proving that there exists a $B$ that satisfies this equation as well as condition (1).
linear-algebra
1
Are you working in $mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ or are you looking for a solution that does not depend on the field we are considering ?
– Charles Madeline
9 hours ago
2
Note that in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, the result is obviously false, since all invertible matrices have determinant $1$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Last remark: if you are working in $mathbb{C}$, this is easy : triangularize $A = PTP^{-1}$ (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix#Triangularisability), define $B = Pmbox{Diag}(alpha_2,-alpha_1)P^{-1}$ where $(alpha_1,alpha_2)$ is the diagonal of $T$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
@CharlesMadeline Thank you. What would I do for $mathbb{R}$?
– Ryan Greyling
8 hours ago
1
I have a solution in the real case provided that $mbox{Tr}(A)neq -1$. Take $B = lambda I_2-A$ for a proper $lambda$ (use the triangularized form to see why it works)
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
For each invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $A$, does there exist an invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $B$ such that the following conditions hold?
(1) $A + B$ is invertible
(2) det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$)
I know that for $2$ x $2$ matrices det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$) + tr($A$)tr($B$) - tr($AB$). So this means tr($A$)tr($B$) = tr($AB$). Right now I am having trouble proving that there exists a $B$ that satisfies this equation as well as condition (1).
linear-algebra
For each invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $A$, does there exist an invertible $2$ x $2$ matrix $B$ such that the following conditions hold?
(1) $A + B$ is invertible
(2) det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$)
I know that for $2$ x $2$ matrices det($A+B$) = det($A$) + det($B$) + tr($A$)tr($B$) - tr($AB$). So this means tr($A$)tr($B$) = tr($AB$). Right now I am having trouble proving that there exists a $B$ that satisfies this equation as well as condition (1).
linear-algebra
linear-algebra
asked 9 hours ago
Ryan Greyling
543
543
1
Are you working in $mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ or are you looking for a solution that does not depend on the field we are considering ?
– Charles Madeline
9 hours ago
2
Note that in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, the result is obviously false, since all invertible matrices have determinant $1$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Last remark: if you are working in $mathbb{C}$, this is easy : triangularize $A = PTP^{-1}$ (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix#Triangularisability), define $B = Pmbox{Diag}(alpha_2,-alpha_1)P^{-1}$ where $(alpha_1,alpha_2)$ is the diagonal of $T$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
@CharlesMadeline Thank you. What would I do for $mathbb{R}$?
– Ryan Greyling
8 hours ago
1
I have a solution in the real case provided that $mbox{Tr}(A)neq -1$. Take $B = lambda I_2-A$ for a proper $lambda$ (use the triangularized form to see why it works)
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Are you working in $mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ or are you looking for a solution that does not depend on the field we are considering ?
– Charles Madeline
9 hours ago
2
Note that in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, the result is obviously false, since all invertible matrices have determinant $1$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Last remark: if you are working in $mathbb{C}$, this is easy : triangularize $A = PTP^{-1}$ (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix#Triangularisability), define $B = Pmbox{Diag}(alpha_2,-alpha_1)P^{-1}$ where $(alpha_1,alpha_2)$ is the diagonal of $T$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
@CharlesMadeline Thank you. What would I do for $mathbb{R}$?
– Ryan Greyling
8 hours ago
1
I have a solution in the real case provided that $mbox{Tr}(A)neq -1$. Take $B = lambda I_2-A$ for a proper $lambda$ (use the triangularized form to see why it works)
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
1
1
Are you working in $mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ or are you looking for a solution that does not depend on the field we are considering ?
– Charles Madeline
9 hours ago
Are you working in $mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ or are you looking for a solution that does not depend on the field we are considering ?
– Charles Madeline
9 hours ago
2
2
Note that in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, the result is obviously false, since all invertible matrices have determinant $1$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Note that in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, the result is obviously false, since all invertible matrices have determinant $1$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Last remark: if you are working in $mathbb{C}$, this is easy : triangularize $A = PTP^{-1}$ (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix#Triangularisability), define $B = Pmbox{Diag}(alpha_2,-alpha_1)P^{-1}$ where $(alpha_1,alpha_2)$ is the diagonal of $T$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Last remark: if you are working in $mathbb{C}$, this is easy : triangularize $A = PTP^{-1}$ (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix#Triangularisability), define $B = Pmbox{Diag}(alpha_2,-alpha_1)P^{-1}$ where $(alpha_1,alpha_2)$ is the diagonal of $T$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
@CharlesMadeline Thank you. What would I do for $mathbb{R}$?
– Ryan Greyling
8 hours ago
@CharlesMadeline Thank you. What would I do for $mathbb{R}$?
– Ryan Greyling
8 hours ago
1
1
I have a solution in the real case provided that $mbox{Tr}(A)neq -1$. Take $B = lambda I_2-A$ for a proper $lambda$ (use the triangularized form to see why it works)
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
I have a solution in the real case provided that $mbox{Tr}(A)neq -1$. Take $B = lambda I_2-A$ for a proper $lambda$ (use the triangularized form to see why it works)
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Since we aretalking of $2times2$ matrices, its slightly easier to write down explicitly.
So $det(A+B)=det(A)+det(B)$ happens when $(a_{11}+b_{11})(a_{22}+b_{22})-(a_{12}+b_{12})(a_{21}+b_{21})=(a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21})+(b_{11}b_{22}-b_{12}b_{21})$
$implies a_{11}b_{22}+b_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}b_{21}-b_{12}a_{21}=0=detbegin{bmatrix}a_{11},a_{12}\b_{21},b_{22}end{bmatrix}+detbegin{bmatrix}b_{11},b_{12}\a_{21},a_{22}end{bmatrix}$
Choosing $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} = -a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$ we get our matrix B.
The key point here is to choose $b_{ij}$ such that the two determinants are zero. Part 1 follows by considering matrix B such that $det(A+B)neq0$
$rule{17cm}{1pt}$
Example for $det(A+B)neq0$ consider the matrix $A=begin{bmatrix}4: 5 \7: 9end{bmatrix}$. We can choose matrix B as $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Since we aretalking of $2times2$ matrices, its slightly easier to write down explicitly.
So $det(A+B)=det(A)+det(B)$ happens when $(a_{11}+b_{11})(a_{22}+b_{22})-(a_{12}+b_{12})(a_{21}+b_{21})=(a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21})+(b_{11}b_{22}-b_{12}b_{21})$
$implies a_{11}b_{22}+b_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}b_{21}-b_{12}a_{21}=0=detbegin{bmatrix}a_{11},a_{12}\b_{21},b_{22}end{bmatrix}+detbegin{bmatrix}b_{11},b_{12}\a_{21},a_{22}end{bmatrix}$
Choosing $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} = -a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$ we get our matrix B.
The key point here is to choose $b_{ij}$ such that the two determinants are zero. Part 1 follows by considering matrix B such that $det(A+B)neq0$
$rule{17cm}{1pt}$
Example for $det(A+B)neq0$ consider the matrix $A=begin{bmatrix}4: 5 \7: 9end{bmatrix}$. We can choose matrix B as $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Since we aretalking of $2times2$ matrices, its slightly easier to write down explicitly.
So $det(A+B)=det(A)+det(B)$ happens when $(a_{11}+b_{11})(a_{22}+b_{22})-(a_{12}+b_{12})(a_{21}+b_{21})=(a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21})+(b_{11}b_{22}-b_{12}b_{21})$
$implies a_{11}b_{22}+b_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}b_{21}-b_{12}a_{21}=0=detbegin{bmatrix}a_{11},a_{12}\b_{21},b_{22}end{bmatrix}+detbegin{bmatrix}b_{11},b_{12}\a_{21},a_{22}end{bmatrix}$
Choosing $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} = -a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$ we get our matrix B.
The key point here is to choose $b_{ij}$ such that the two determinants are zero. Part 1 follows by considering matrix B such that $det(A+B)neq0$
$rule{17cm}{1pt}$
Example for $det(A+B)neq0$ consider the matrix $A=begin{bmatrix}4: 5 \7: 9end{bmatrix}$. We can choose matrix B as $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Since we aretalking of $2times2$ matrices, its slightly easier to write down explicitly.
So $det(A+B)=det(A)+det(B)$ happens when $(a_{11}+b_{11})(a_{22}+b_{22})-(a_{12}+b_{12})(a_{21}+b_{21})=(a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21})+(b_{11}b_{22}-b_{12}b_{21})$
$implies a_{11}b_{22}+b_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}b_{21}-b_{12}a_{21}=0=detbegin{bmatrix}a_{11},a_{12}\b_{21},b_{22}end{bmatrix}+detbegin{bmatrix}b_{11},b_{12}\a_{21},a_{22}end{bmatrix}$
Choosing $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} = -a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$ we get our matrix B.
The key point here is to choose $b_{ij}$ such that the two determinants are zero. Part 1 follows by considering matrix B such that $det(A+B)neq0$
$rule{17cm}{1pt}$
Example for $det(A+B)neq0$ consider the matrix $A=begin{bmatrix}4: 5 \7: 9end{bmatrix}$. We can choose matrix B as $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.
Since we aretalking of $2times2$ matrices, its slightly easier to write down explicitly.
So $det(A+B)=det(A)+det(B)$ happens when $(a_{11}+b_{11})(a_{22}+b_{22})-(a_{12}+b_{12})(a_{21}+b_{21})=(a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21})+(b_{11}b_{22}-b_{12}b_{21})$
$implies a_{11}b_{22}+b_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}b_{21}-b_{12}a_{21}=0=detbegin{bmatrix}a_{11},a_{12}\b_{21},b_{22}end{bmatrix}+detbegin{bmatrix}b_{11},b_{12}\a_{21},a_{22}end{bmatrix}$
Choosing $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} = -a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$ we get our matrix B.
The key point here is to choose $b_{ij}$ such that the two determinants are zero. Part 1 follows by considering matrix B such that $det(A+B)neq0$
$rule{17cm}{1pt}$
Example for $det(A+B)neq0$ consider the matrix $A=begin{bmatrix}4: 5 \7: 9end{bmatrix}$. We can choose matrix B as $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.
edited 4 hours ago
Charles Madeline
3,2571837
3,2571837
answered 8 hours ago
Yadati Kiran
1218
1218
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
This answer cannot be correct because it works in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, which is impossible. More precisely, with your definitions, $A+B = begin{pmatrix} a_{11}+a_{21} & a_{12}+a_{22}\ a_{21}+a_{11} & a_{22}+a_{12}end{pmatrix}$. So it is imposible to "choose $B$ such that $mbox{det}(A+B)neq 0$"
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Choose $b_{11} = -a_{21}, b_{12} =- a_{22}, b_{21} = a_{11}$ and $b_{22} = a_{12}$.
– Yadati Kiran
6 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
Determinant will still be zero since the rows (or columns) are identical upto scalar multiplication. The sum of determinants will still be equal to determinant of sum as shown in example.
– Yadati Kiran
5 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
You can make the edit @Charles Madeline. But just would like to know what was your argument regarding $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$.
– Yadati Kiran
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997911%2ffor-any-2-x-2-matrix-a-does-there-always-exist-a-2-x-2-matrix-b-suc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Are you working in $mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ or are you looking for a solution that does not depend on the field we are considering ?
– Charles Madeline
9 hours ago
2
Note that in $mathcal{M}_2(mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z})$, the result is obviously false, since all invertible matrices have determinant $1$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
Last remark: if you are working in $mathbb{C}$, this is easy : triangularize $A = PTP^{-1}$ (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix#Triangularisability), define $B = Pmbox{Diag}(alpha_2,-alpha_1)P^{-1}$ where $(alpha_1,alpha_2)$ is the diagonal of $T$
– Charles Madeline
8 hours ago
@CharlesMadeline Thank you. What would I do for $mathbb{R}$?
– Ryan Greyling
8 hours ago
1
I have a solution in the real case provided that $mbox{Tr}(A)neq -1$. Take $B = lambda I_2-A$ for a proper $lambda$ (use the triangularized form to see why it works)
– Charles Madeline
6 hours ago