Math 215 HW #3 Solutions

1. Problem 1.6.6. Use

1
A1 = 1
0

the GaussJordan method

0 0
2
1 1 ,
A2 = 1
0 1
0

Solution: Start with the augmented

1
1
0

to invert

1 0
2 1 ,
1 2

0 0 1
A3 = 0 1 1 .
1 1 1

matrix [A1 I]:

0 0
1 1
0 1

1 0 0
0 1 0 .
0 0 1

Then the only row on the left that doesnt already look like the identity matrix is the second
row; we just need subtract rows 1 and 3 from row 2, which gives:

1 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0
1 1 1 .
0 0 1
0 0 1
Hence,

A1
1

1 0 0
= 1 1 1
0 0 1

To find A1
2 , start with the augmented matrix [A2 I]:

2 1 0
1 0 0
1 2 1
0 1 0 .
0 1 2
0 0 1
Replace the first row by half of itself and

1 21
0 3
2
0 1
Next, add a third of the second row
multiply the second row by 2/3:

1
0
0

add half of the first row to the second:

1
0
2 0 0
1
.
1
2 1 0
2
0 0 1

to the first, add 2/3 the second row to the third, and
0 31
1 32
0 34

2
3
1
3
1
3

1
3
2
3
2
3

0
0 .
1

Finally, multiply the third row by 3/4, then add 1/3 of the result to row 1 and add 2/3 of
the result to row 2:

3
1
1
1 0 0
4
2
4
1
1
0 1 0
.
2 1 2
1
1
3
0 0 1
4
2
4
1

Thus,

A1
2 =

3
4
1
2
1
4

To find A1
3 , start with the augmented matrix

0 0 1
0 1 1
1 1 1

1
2

1
1
2

1
4
1
2
3
4

[A3 I]:

1 0 0
0 1 0 .
0 0 1

First, switch rows 1 and 3:

1 1 1
0 1 1
0 0 1
Now, subtract row 2 from row 1 and

1
0
0

0 0 1
0 1 0 .
1 0 0

subtract row 3 from row 2:

0 0
0 1 1
1 0
1 1 0 .
0 1
1
0 0

Thus,

A1
3

2. Problem 1.6.8. Show that A =
solve

1 1
3 3
1 1
3 3

0 1 1
= 1 1 0 .
1
0 0

has no inverse by solving Ax = 0, and by failing to


a b
c d


=

1 0
0 1


.

Solution: Note that (as discussed in class on Friday),

  


1
0
1 1
,
=
1
0
3 3



1
so x =
is a solution of Ax = 0. The fact that this equation has such a solution implies
1
that A is not invertible. To see this, note that if A were invertible, we could multiply both
sides of the above equation by A1 , yielding x = A1 0 = 0. Since the given solution x is not
zero, this is clearly impossible.
Another proof that A is not invertible is as follows.
 If A were invertible, then there would
a b
exist A1 such that AA1 = I. Assuming A1 =
, this means
c d


1 1
3 3



a b
c d
2


=

1 0
0 1


.

This implies that

a+c=1
b+d=0
3a + 3c = 0
3b + 3d = 1.
The third equation can be re-written as 3(a + c) = 0 or, dividing both sides by 3, as a + c = 0.
But this directly contradicts the first equation, meaning that there is no solution to this
system; equivalently, A is not invertible.
3. Problem 1.6.14. If B is square, show that A = B + B T is always symmetric and K = B B T
is always
means that K T = K. Find these matrices A and K when
 skew-symmetricwhich

1 3
B=
, and write B as the sum of a symmetric matrix and a skew-symmetric matrix.
1 1
Solution: Suppose B is an n n matrix with entries as indicated:

b11 b12 . . . b1n

b21 b22 . . . b2n

B= .
..
.. .
.
.
.
.
bn1 bn2 . . . bnn
Then

B =

b11
b12
..
.

b21
b22
..
.

. . . bn1
. . . bn2
..
.

b1n b2n . . . bnn

so

A = B + BT =

2b11
b21 + b12
..
.

b12 + b21
2b22
..
.

. . . b1n + bn1
. . . b2n + bn2
..
.

bn1 + b1n bn2 + b2n . . .

2bnn

which is clearly a symmetric matrix.

Likewise,

K = B BT =

0
b21 b12
..
.

b12 b21
0
..
.

. . . b1n bn1
. . . b2n bn2
..
.

bn1 b1n bn2 b2n . . .

which is certainly skew-symmetric.


1 3
Now, when B =
, we get
1 1


2 4
A=
,
4 2


K=
3

0 2
2 0


.

Now, notice that

A + K = (B + B T ) + (B B T ) = 2B;
this suggests that we try adding 21 A and 12 K:
1
1
1
1
A + K = (B + B T ) + (B B T ) = B.
2
2
2
2
Therefore, using the computed A and K from above,

 

1 2
0 1
B=
+
2 1
1 0
is indeed the sum of a symmetric matrix and a skew-symmetric matrix.
4. Problem 1.6.18. Under what conditions on their entries are A

a b c
a b
A= d e 0
B= c d
f 0 0
0 0

and B invertible?

0
0
e

Solution: Since square a matrix is invertible if and only if elimination yields the same number
of pivots as rows, we just need to do elimination on A and B and see what conditions on their
entries ensure that we get a pivot in every row.
First, we do elimination on A. Notice that, if f = 0, then the third row is all zeros and there
can never be a third pivot. So it must be the case that f 6= 0 if A is invertible. This then
ensures there is a pivot in the first column; to make the pivot actually occur at f , switch rows
1 and 3:

f 0 0
d e 0 .
a b c
Now, subtract fd times row 1 from row 2 and subtract
these fractions are well-defined because f 6= 0):

f 0 0
0 e 0 .
0 b c

a
f

times row 1 from row 3 (note that

If e = 0 then the second row is all zeros, meaning that there can never be a pivot in that
row. Thus, if A is invertible, it must be the case that e 6= 0. This then implies that there is a
pivot in the second column, and we can eliminate the entry below it by subtracting eb times
row 2 from row 3 (note that this fraction is well-defined because e 6= 0):

f 0 0
0 e 0 .
0 0 c
We already know there are pivots in the first two rows; there will be a pivot in the third row
only if c 6= 0. Hence, if A is to be invertible, it must be the case that c 6= 0. Therefore, the
conditions which ensure that A is invertible are:
c 6= 0,

e 6= 0,
4

f 6= 0.

Turning to B, note that the third row will be all zeros (and, thus, never have a pivot) unless
e 6= 0. Hence, if B is to be invertible, it must be the case that e 6= 0. Also, if there is to be
a pivot in the first column, then either a or c must be nonzero. If a is nonzero, then we can
eliminate c by subtracting ac times row 1 from row2 (which is well-defined since a 6= 0):

a
b
0 d cb
a
0
0

0
0 .
e

Then, in order to have a pivot in the second row, it must be the case that
d

cb
6= 0
a

or, equivalently,
ad bc 6= 0.
On the other hand, if c 6= 0, so we can switch rows 1 and 2 to get

c d 0
a b 0 .
0 0 e
Then we can eliminate a by subtracting
c 6= 0):

a
c

times row 1 from row 2 (which is well-defined since

c
d
0 b ad
c
0
0

0
0 .
e

Again, if we are to have a pivot in the second row, it must be the case that
b

ad
6= 0
c

or, equivalently,
bc ad 6= 0.
Therefore, either a 6= 0 and ad bc 6= 0, or c 6= 0 and bc ad 6= 0. However, ad bc 6= 0
is equivalent to bc ad 6= 0, and this inequality requires that either a or c is nonzero (if
both were zero then the left hand side would be zero). Hence, the simplified conditions under
which A is invertible are:
ad bc 6= 0 and e 6= 0.
5. Problem 1.6.26. If A has column 1 + column 2 = column 3, show that A is not invertible:
(a) Find a nonzero solution x to Ax = 0. The matrix is 3 by 3.
(b) Elimination keeps column 1 + column 2 = column 3. Explain why there is no third
pivot.

Solution: For part (a), suppose

a b a+b
A = c d c + d .
e f e+f

1
Then, if x = 1 , we have that
1

a b a+b
1
a + b (a + b)
0
Ax = c d c + d 1 = c + d (c + d) = 0 .
e f e+f
1
e + f (e + f )
0
Hence, Ax = 0, so A is not invertible.
For part (b), since elimination keeps column 1 + column 2 = column 3 and since, after
elimination, the first and second entries in the third row will be zero, we have that the third
entry must equal 0 + 0 = 0. Thus, the whole third row is zero, so there is no third pivot.
6. Problem 1.6.38. Invert these matrices A by the GaussJordan

1 0 0
1 1

A= 2 1 3
and A = 1 2
0 0 1
1 2

method starting with [A I]:

1
2 .
3

Solution: For the first choice of A, we write the augmented matrix [A I]:

1 0 0
1 0 0
2 1 3
0 1 0 .
0 0 1
0 0 1
Then subtracting two times row 1 from
yields

1 0
0 1
0 0

row 2 and subtracting three times row 3 from row 2

1 0 0
2 1 3 .
0 0 1

0
0
1

Hence,

A1

1 0 0
= 2 1 3 .
0 0 1

For the second choice of A, write the augmented matrix [A I]:

1 1 1
1 0 0
1 2 2
0 1 0 .
1 2 3
0 0 1

Subtracting row 1 from rows 2 and 3

1
0
0

yields:

In turn, subtracting row 2 from rows 1

1 0
0 1
0 0
Finally, subtracting row 3 from row

1
0
0

1 0 0
1 1 0 .
1 0 1

1 1
1 1
1 2

and 3 yields:

2 1 0
1 1 0 .
0 1 1

0
1
1

2 yields:

2 1 0
1 2 1 .
0 1 1

0 0
1 0
0 1

Hence,

2 1 0
= 1 2 1 .
0 1 1

A1

7. Problem 1.6.40. True or false (with a counterexample if false and a reason if true):
(a) A 4 by 4 matrix with a row of zeros is not invertible.
Solution: True. There can never be a pivot in a row of all zeros, so the matrix can
have at most 3 pivots and hence cannot be invertible.
(b) A matrix with 1s down the main diagonal is invertible.


1 1
. This matrix has 1s down the main
Solution: False. Consider the matrix A =
1 1
diagonal, but its clear that the first elimination step will yield all zeros in the second
row, so this A is not invertible.
(c) If A is invertible then A1 is invertible.
Solution: True. Since AA1 = I and A1 A = I, we see that A is the inverse of A1
(i.e. (A1 )1 = A), and so A1 is invertible.
(d) If AT is invertible then A is invertible.
Solution: True. From Equation 1M in the textbook,
(AT )1 = (A1 )T ,
or, in other words,
 T 1 T
(A )
= A1 ,
so A is invertible.

8. Problem 1.6.52. Show that A2 = 0 is possible but AT A = 0 is not possible (unless A = zero
matrix).


0 2
Solution: First, note that if A =
, then A 6= 0, but
0 0


 

0 2
0 2
0 0
2
A =
=
.
0 0
0 0
0 0
So we see that A2 = 0 is possible even if A 6= 0.
On the other hand, to show that AT A 6= 0 whenever A 6=
which is not equal to zero. Writing it out, we have that

a11 a12 . . . a1n

a21 a22 . . . a2n

A= .
..
..
..
.
.

0, suppose A is an m n matrix

am1 am2 . . . amn

where ajk 6= 0 for at least one choice of j and k. Hence,

a11 a21 . . . am1

a12 a22 . . . am2

AT = .
..
..
..
.
.
a1n a2n . . . amn

Therefore,

AT A =

a11
a12
..
.

a21
a22
..
.

. . . am1
. . . am2
..
.

a11
a21
..
.

a12
a22
..
.

...
...

a1n
a2n
..
.

a1n a2n . . . amn

am1 am2 . . . amn

Pm
Pm
Pm 2
a
a
.
.
.
a
a
a
i1
i2
i1
in
i1
i=1
i=1
i=1
Pm
Pm
Pm 2

...
i=1 ai2 ain
i=1 ai2 ai1
i=1 ai2
.
..
..
..

.
.
.
Pm
Pm
Pm 2
i=1 ain
i=1 ain ai1
i=1 ain ai2 . . .

Notice that the diagonal entries are all sums of squares and so are all non-negative. Moreover,
since ajk 6= 0, we have that
m
X

a2ik = a21k + a22k + . . . + a2jk + . . . + amk2 > 0.

i=1

Since this is exactly the diagonal entry in the kth row of AT A, we see that, indeed, AT A 6= 0.


9. Problem 1.7.4. Write down the 3 by 3 finite-difference matrix equation h = 14 for

d2 u
+ u = x,
dx2
8

u(0) = u(1) = 0.

Solution: First, note that we approximate the second derivative by

u(x + h) 2u(x) + u(x h)
2 u
=
.
2
x
h2
Also, since we can only measure u at the mesh points x = jh, we substitute jh for x and use
the approximation for the second derivative to get

u(jh + h) 2u(jh) + u(jh h)

+ u(jh) = jh.
h2

Multiplying both sides by h2 and using the notation uk = u(kh) yields the finite-difference
equation
uj+1 + 2uj uj1 + h2 uj = h2 jh.
Combining terms and using the fact that h = 1/4 yields


j
1
uj uj1 = .
uj+1 + 2 +
16
64
When j = 1, this yields the equation
u2 +

33
1
u1 u0 = .
16
64

Since u0 = u(0) = 0, this simplifies to

u2 +

1
33
u1 = .
16
64

(1)

When j = 2, the difference equation becomes

u3 +

33
2
u2 u1 = .
16
64

(2)

When j = 3, the difference equation becomes

u4 +

3
33
u3 u2 = .
16
64

Since u4 = u(1) = 0, this simplifies as

33
3
u3 u2 = .
16
64
We can combine equations (1), (2), and (3) into the single matrix equation
33

1
1 0
u1
16
64
1 33 1 u2 = 2 .
16
64
33
3
0 1 16
u3
64

(3)