Skip to content
Hub Nexus

No author yetClaim it

Version 1Updated 2 min read

Support

In the first chapter of this book we considered linear systems
and we picked out the special case of systems
with the same number of equations as unknowns,
those of the form T \overset{→}{x} = \overset{→}{b} where T is a square matrix.
We noted a distinction between two classes of T's.
While such systems may have a unique solution or no solutions or infinitely
many solutions, if a particular T is associated with a unique solution
in any system, such as the homogeneous system \overset{→}{b} = \overset{→}{0}, then
T is associated with a unique solution for every \overset{→}{b}.
We call such a matrix of coefficients "nonsingular".
The other kind of T, where every linear system for which it is the
matrix of coefficients has either no solution or infinitely many solutions,
we call "singular".

Through the second and third chapters the value of this distinction
has been a theme.
For instance, we now know that
nonsingularity of an n \ × \ n
matrix T is equivalent to each of these:

  • a system T \overset{→}{x} = \overset{→}{b} has a solution, and that solution is unique;
  • Gauss-Jordan reduction of T yields an identity matrix;
  • the rows of T form a linearly independent set;
  • the columns of T form a basis for {ℝ}^{n};
  • any map that T represents is an isomorphism;
  • an inverse matrix {T}^{− 1} exists.

So when we look at a particular square matrix,
the question of whether it is nonsingular is one of the first things
that we ask.
This chapter develops a formula to determine this.
(Since we will restrict the discussion to square matrices, in this chapter
we will usually simply say "matrix" in place of "square matrix".)

More precisely, we will develop infinitely many formulas,
one for {}1 \ × \ 1 matrices, one for {}2 \ × \ 2 matrices, etc.
Of course, these formulas are related — that is,
we will develop a family of
formulas, a scheme that describes the formula for each size.

Where this page came from

This page was imported from Wikibooks. From “Linear Algebra” on Wikibooks, by its contributors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Changed here: set as a page; navigation and edit links left out; each image under its own licence, credited in its caption.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.

Comments

Spinner Logo

Next in Linear Algebra

CC BY-SA 4.0
For ${}1 \ × \ 1$ matrices, determining nonsingularity is trivial. $( \begin{matrix}a\end{matrix} )$ is nonsingular iff $a ≠ 0$ The ${}2 \ × \ 2$ formula came out in the course of developing the inverse. $( \begin{matrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{matrix} )$ is nonsingular iff $a d − b c ≠ 0$ The ${}3 \ × \
CC BY-SA 4.0
This subsection is optional. It briefly describes how an investigator might come to a good general definition, which is given in the next subsection. The three cases above don't show an evident pattern to use for the general $n \ × \ n$ formula. We may spot that the ${}1 \ × \ 1$ term a has one lett
CC BY-SA 4.0
As described above, we want a formula to determine whether an $n \ × \ n$ matrix is nonsingular. We will not begin by stating such a formula. Instead, we will begin by considering the function that such a formula calculates. We will define the function by its properties, then prove that the function
CC BY-SA 4.0
The prior subsection defines a function to be a determinant if it satisfies four conditions and shows that there is at most one $n \ × \ n$ determinant function for each n. What is left is to show that for each n such a function exists. How could such a function not exist? After all, we have done co
CC BY-SA 4.0
This subsection is optional. It consists of proofs of two results from the prior subsection. These proofs involve the properties of permutations, which will not be used later, except in the optional Jordan Canonical Form subsection. The prior subsection attacks the problem of showing that for any si
CC BY-SA 4.0
This parallelogram picture is familiar from the construction of the sum of the two vectors. One way to compute the area that it encloses is to draw this rectangle and subtract the area of each subregion. $\begin{matrix}\text{area of parallelogram} \\ \ = \text{area of rectangle} − \text{area of } A