Inverse Matrix Problem: How to Solve a Partitioned Matrix

In summary, the conversation discusses the method for finding the inverse of a partitioned matrix. The formula for 2x2 inverses is given, but it is noted that it only works when all blocks of the matrix commute. The conversation also touches on the issue of expressing the inverse in terms of B, B^-1, 0, I, and it is concluded that B^-1 may not necessarily appear in the final answer. The formula for the determinant is also discussed, and it is shown that it works for this particular case. Finally, it is noted that when the blocks of the matrix do not commute, finding the inverse becomes more complicated.
  • #1
Precursor
222
0
Homework Statement

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9336/matho.jpg


The attempt at a solution
I don't really know how to go about solving this problem, since it's a partitioned matrix. If I write it out in its complete 4 * 4 form, it will take a long time to reduce it, and I won't be able to get an answer in the form required by the question. So what method of inverse should I use?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not sure this would work, but I would give it a shot. For a 2 x 2 matrix A =
[a b]
[c d]
, A-1 =
(1/det(A)) *
[d -b]
[-c a]

Maybe you can extend this idea, with |A| being |B|*0 - 2|I|2.
 
  • #3
Precursor said:
I don't really know how to go about solving this problem, since it's a partitioned matrix.
Does that matter? Where does this cause problems?
 
  • #4
Mark44 said:
I'm not sure this would work, but I would give it a shot. For a 2 x 2 matrix A =
[a b]
[c d]
, A-1 =
(1/det(A)) *
[d -b]
[-c a]

Maybe you can extend this idea, with |A| being |B|*0 - 2|I|2.

According to this method, the inverse turns out to be:

[tex]\begin{bmatrix}-\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0 & -2I \\-I & B\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}-\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 \\ -2 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & -2 & 3 & 0\end{bmatrix}[/tex]


Now how do I get the inverse in terms of [tex]B, B^{-1}, 0, I[/tex], as the problem asks?
 
  • #5
Why did you do arithmetic with the individual components instead of with the blocks?
 
  • #6
Hurkyl said:
Why did you do arithmetic with the individual components instead of with the blocks?

[tex]A^{-1} = (AD- BC)^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}D & -B \\ -C & A\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

where [tex]A= B, B= 2I, C= I, D= 0[/tex].

I don't know how to continue from this without using the individual components. But why should that matter anyway? If the inverse I posted above is correct, then shouldn't I be able to put it back into partitioned form?
 
  • #7
Precursor said:
If the inverse I posted above is correct, then shouldn't I be able to put it back into partitioned form?
I don't understand why you have a problem turning it back into partitioned form and relabeling the blocks. Could you explain more?

But I don't understand why you took it out of partitioned form and wrote everything in terms of their components either.
 
  • #8
Hurkyl said:
I don't understand why you have a problem turning it back into partitioned form and relabeling the blocks. Could you explain more?

But I don't understand why you took it out of partitioned form and wrote everything in terms of their components either.

If I turn it back into partitioned form I get

[tex]\begin{bmatrix}-\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 \\ -2 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & -2 & 3 & 0\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}-\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0 & -2I \\-I & B\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

which is not in terms of [tex]B, B^{-1}, 0, I[/tex]. The one that's missing is [tex]B^{-1}[/tex].
 
  • #9
Precursor said:
[tex]A^{-1} = (AD- BC)^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}D & -B \\ -C & A\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

where [tex]A= B, B= 2I, C= I, D= 0[/tex].
You don't want (AD - BC)-1, just 1/(|A||D| - |B||C|). This works out to be an ordinary common fraction. I calculated A-1 as I described. As a check, I calculated AA-1 and got a block matrix with I blocks on the main diagonal and 0 blocks elsewhere. There's no need to calculate B-1.
Precursor said:
I don't know how to continue from this without using the individual components. But why should that matter anyway? If the inverse I posted above is correct, then shouldn't I be able to put it back into partitioned form?
 
  • #10
So was your final answer a partitioned matrix in terms of [tex]B, B^{-1}, 0, I[/tex], or was it like mine?
 
  • #11
You know how to check if you have the inverse right?

A priori, there's no reason that B-1 must appear in your answer. "In terms of" means that you should limit yourself only* to those things -- it does not imply all of those things should appear.

P.S. you should probably multiply out your two matrices...

*: There are usually some other things implicitly included -- in this case probably things like scalars, products, and so forth
 
  • #12
For the record, this problem has a special form -- all of the blocks commute with each other. If it weren't for that fact, the quoted formula for 2x2 inverses would not work here.

If it works, that is -- I haven't checked that it actually does. And I think you are right that you want (AD-BC)-1 rather than the determinant.
 
  • #13
I've checked it out in two ways: working with the blocks, and substituting the blocks back in and multiplying the expanded forms of A and A^(-1). I get the identity matrix both ways.

I realize that the inverse formula I used works only for 2 x 2 matrices. Apparently it also works if you have 2 x 2 block matrices where the blocks are each 2 x 2.

My formula for the determinant is, I believe, correct. It lead to the answer I expected, but I haven't proven that it is correct. For the block matrix A, the "determinant" I came up with was 1/(|A||D| - |B||C|), which works out to -1/2.
 
  • #14
Mark44 said:
Apparently it also works if you have 2 x 2 block matrices where the blocks are each 2 x 2.
And those blocks commute with each other!

Commuting is a key point -- it means that the block matrix arithmetic behaves sufficiently similar to ordinary arithmetic that you wind up getting the same formulas when all is said and done.

When the blocks don't commute, things get messier. You can still find the inverse via (block) Gaussian elimination, of course.
 

FAQ: Inverse Matrix Problem: How to Solve a Partitioned Matrix

What is an inverse matrix?

An inverse matrix is a matrix that, when multiplied with the original matrix, yields the identity matrix. In other words, it "undoes" the original matrix.

Why is the inverse matrix important?

The inverse matrix is important because it allows us to solve equations involving matrices, which are commonly used in various fields such as physics, engineering, and computer science. It also helps to simplify calculations and find solutions to systems of equations.

How do you find the inverse matrix?

To find the inverse matrix, you can use a variety of methods such as the Gauss-Jordan elimination, Gaussian elimination, or finding the adjugate matrix. The method used will depend on the size and complexity of the matrix.

Can all matrices have an inverse?

No, not all matrices have an inverse. A matrix must be square and have a non-zero determinant in order to have an inverse. If the determinant is zero, then the matrix is considered singular and does not have an inverse.

What are some applications of the inverse matrix?

The inverse matrix has many applications, including solving systems of linear equations, finding the coefficients in a regression model, and inverting transformations in computer graphics. It is also used in cryptography for creating secure codes and in circuit analysis to find the current and voltage at different points.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top