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
3












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).










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 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

















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












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).










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 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















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3






3





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).










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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
















  • 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












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 $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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
































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 $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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















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 $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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













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 $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.






share|cite|improve this answer














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 $begin{bmatrix}-7 -9 \4 :: 5end{bmatrix}$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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




















































































Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa