Re: Linear algebra with pitfall..

In article <guh004119chf4vmiij92u8npvs7k0o5k6u@xxxxxxx>,
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:09:39 GMT, rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rob Johnson)
wrote:

In article <ftp983$mcr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"mina_world" <mina_world@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A, B in Matrix_2x2.
E is identity matrix.

True or false.
(A+B)(A-B) = E ==> AB = BA.

True.

Since (A+B)(A-B) = E, A-B is invertible. Thus, there is a C so that
(A-B)C = E. Thus, A+B = (A+B)E = (A+B)(A-B)C = EC = C. Therefore,
we have that (A-B)(A+B) = E. This means that

(A+B)(A-B) = E = (A-B)(A+B)

A^2 + BA - AB - B^2 = A^2 + AB - BA - B^2

2 BA = 2 AB

AB = BA

Essentially the same argument, but perhaps slightly simpler to see,
(and what I should have seen right away) is the following ...

(A + B) (A - B) = E
=> A + B and A - B are inverses of each other
=> (A - B) (A + B) = E
=> (A + B) (A - B) = (A - B) (A + B)
=> AB = BA
(after expanding and simplifying)

Any proof looks simpler if parts are assumed or skipped over.

Rob Johnson <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
take out the trash before replying
to view any ASCII art, display article in a monospaced font
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast