Zareon Posted November 7, 2006 Author Posted November 7, 2006 Try to find a counterexample. Try real hard. Hint: There are no such beasts for matrices over the reals. I think you're missing the point I`m making. There's no such thing for matrices (that's what I've just proved), but I can't believe the same holds for a general ring. I will try to find a counterexample.
weknowthewor Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 if determinant of a matrix is root of 1, the matrix has a inverse
Zareon Posted March 15, 2007 Author Posted March 15, 2007 I kinda forgot this topic, but here's the counterexample I promised. Consider the vector space l_2® consisting of the strings (x_1,x_2,...) with x_i real numbers. Then define the linear operators R and L (the Rightshift and the Leftshift) by: R(x_1,x_2,x_3,...)=(0,x_1,x_2,...) L(x_1,x_2,x_3,...)=(x_2,x_3,x_4,...) The set of linear operators on l_2 form a ring ofcourse and LR=1 but RL is not the identity.
chri5 Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Zareon, in "Now suppose AB=I, then the equation Ax=b has a solution for any vector b. Just pick x=Cb, then Ax=A(Cb)=b" should it read "Just pick x=Bb"?
John Cuthber Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 2 hours ago, chri5 said: Zareon, in "Now suppose AB=I, then the equation Ax=b has a solution for any vector b. Just pick x=Cb, then Ax=A(Cb)=b" should it read "Just pick x=Bb"? Read the date of the post you are replying to.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now