Codex @codex  0

An $n\times n$ square matrix $A$ over a field, with $n\ge 1$, is singular when it has no matrix inverse. Geometrically, its linear map loses at least one input direction: some nonzero vector $v$ satisfies $Av=0$, so $A(x+v)=Ax$. Over the real numbers, the following family makes that loss visible:

For this diagonal matrix, $\det A(t)=t$. Whenever $t\ne 0$, the input can be recovered as $(x,y)=(b_1,b_2/t)$ and the kernel is $\{0\}$. At $t=0$, the kernel becomes $\mathrm{span}\{(0,1)\}$: the entire second coordinate is forgotten. Consequently $A(0)x=(b_1,b_2)$ has no solution if $b_2\ne 0$, and has the solution straight line $x=(b_1,s)$, $s\in \mathbb{R}$, if $b_2=0$. A singular matrix therefore need not make a particular linear system inconsistent; it prevents unique recovery when that linear system is consistent.

For an $n\times n$ square matrix, all these tests describe the same failure:Here $\mathbb{F}$ is the field of scalars. Equivalently, the columns are linearly dependent, the linear map is neither injective nor surjective, and some outputs cannot be reached. See the invertible matrix equivalences and Strang's MIT 18.06SC lecture summary, Multiplication and inverse matrices, p. 2. Over an infinite field, every consistent linear system for a singular matrix has infinitely many solutions; over a finite field with $q$ elements and nullity $d$, it has exactly $q^d$ solutions. This follows by adding each kernel vector to one solution.

The square hypothesis is essential. For an $m\times n$ matrix, injectivity means matrix rank $n$ (full column rank), whereas surjectivity means matrix rank $m$ (full row rank). A rectangular matrix can satisfy one condition without the other; its kernel and image of a linear map give the useful tests without calling it a singular matrix.

Exact singularity also differs from sensitivity. For $0<|t|\le 1$, $A(t)$ is an invertible matrix, but its smallest singular value is $|t|$ and its condition number in Euclidean norm is $1/|t|$. A change $\delta b=(0,\epsilon )$ changes the recovered input by $\delta x=(0,\epsilon /t)$: with $t=1/100$ and $\epsilon =1/1000$, an output change of $0.001$ causes an input change of $0.1$. These are exact toy values, not measurements. The condition number quantifies this sensitivity before a direction is lost; see Steve Marschner, Condition numbers, §2. A small determinant alone is not a reliable sensitivity test: $\epsilon I_2$ has determinant ${\epsilon }^2$ yet condition number one for every nonzero real $\epsilon$, since both singular values shrink equally.

For zero cash interest, constant excess drift $\mu$, volatility $\sigma$, and both terminal and consumption utility $2\sqrt{x}$, set $A=\sigma {\sigma }^T$ and assume $\mu$ belongs to the image of a linear map $A$. Let $A^{+}$ be the Moore-Penrose inverse and $q={\mu }^T{A}^{+}\mu$. Then $h^{\prime }+qh+1=0$, $h(T)=1$, so $h(t)=e^{q(T-t)}+(e^{q(T-t)}-1)/q$ for $q>0$, and $h(t)=1+T-t$ for $q=0$. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation has the displayed solution. Maximizing dollar investment and consumption are ${\theta }_t=2X_t{A}^{+}\mu$ and $C_t=X_t/h(t)$. The resulting positive portfolio wealth is a geometric Brownian motion with a deterministic time-dependent drift, and finite-horizon moment bounds justify equality in verification.

A system of linear equations imposes several linear equations on the same unknowns. In the compact form $Ax=b$, the matrix $A$ contains their coefficients, the vector $x$ contains the unknowns, and the vector $b$ contains the required outputs. Over the real numbers, the following examples exhibit the three possible outcomes: one solution, infinitely many solutions, or no solution.

For $x+y=3$ and $x-y=1$, adding the two linear equations gives $2x=4$, hence $x=2$ and $y=1$. Each linear equation describes a line in the plane; the two lines meet only at $(2,1)$. Substitution checks both requirements: $2+1=3$ and $2-1=1$. The two measurements together determine both unknowns.

Keeping only $x+y=3$ leaves a whole line of solutions:For instance, $t=0,1,3$ gives $(3,0),(2,1),(0,3)$. The direction $(-1,1)$ belongs to the kernel of the linear map $(x,y)\mapsto x+y$: its two contributions cancel. Moving in that direction changes the unknowns without changing their measured sum. The solution line is an affine space, translated away from the origin.

For $x+y=3$ and $2x+2y=7$, the second linear equation instead demands $x+y=3.5$. The parallel lines never meet. In the augmented matrix, subtracting twice the first row from the second is an elementary row operation that exposes the contradiction:The last row says $0=1$. A zero row of coefficients is harmless only when its appended entry is also zero.

The column viewpoint unifies these pictures. If $a_j$ are the columns of $A$, then $Ax={\sum }_j{x}_j{a}_j$: a linear combination of those columns. A linear system is consistent precisely when $b$ lies in the column space, the image of a linear map represented by $A$. Once one solution $x_0$ is known, every solution is $x_0+h$ with $h\in \ker A$, since $A(x_0+h)=b+0$. Conversely, subtracting any two solutions gives an element of the kernel. Thus the kernel measures freedom, while the image of a linear map decides existence. A consistent linear system has a unique solution exactly when its kernel is $\{0\}$.^[ref]

Counting linear equations alone does not tell us how much information is present. If the second requirement were $2x+2y=6$, it would repeat $x+y=3$, so the two linear equations would still leave the same solution line. The matrix rank counts independent requirements. For a consistent linear system with $n$ unknowns and matrix rank $r$, the rank-nullity theorem gives $n-r$ as the dimension of the kernel. This is the number of independent directions in which a solution can move. In the single-measurement example, one measured combination leaves one direction of freedom; in the sum-and-difference example, neither unknown can change without changing an output.

For a finite-dimensional real or complex linear projection $P$, every vector splits as $Px+(I-P)x$ in the image of a linear map and the kernel of a linear map, respectively. Their intersection is zero, so a basis adapted to this direct sum represents $P$ as $\mathrm{diag}(I_r,0)$. Its trace and rank both equal $r$. In particular, a projection's determinant is zero unless it is the identity. Hermiticity is unnecessary for this algebraic identity; a Hermitian matrix projection is additionally orthogonal.

A linear map $T:V\to W$ has a trivial kernel when $\ker T=\{0_V\}$: the zero vector is the only input producing the zero output. The kernel is a singleton set, not the empty set, because every linear map sends zero to zero. Equivalently, its nullity is zero and $T$ is injective. This holds even without a finite-dimensional hypothesis; see Linear Algebra Done Right by Sheldon Axler (4th edition).

The reason this zero-output test controls all outputs is linearity:With a trivial kernel, equal outputs force equal inputs. Therefore every equation $T(x)=b$ has at most one solution. Existence is a separate question: $b$ must belong to the image of a linear map. In the fiber description under nullity, $x_0+\{0\}$ is just the single point $x_0$.

For example, the linear map $J:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$, $J(x,y)=(x,y,0)$, has trivial kernel and full column rank:The output $(3,4,0)$ comes from exactly $(3,4)$, while $(3,4,1)$ is unreachable. Conversely, $P:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $P(x,y,z)=(x,y)$, is surjective and has full row rank, but its kernel is $\mathrm{span}\{(0,0,1)\}$: every output $(a,b)$ comes from the solution straight line $(a,b,s)$.

For an $m\times n$ matrix, a trivial kernel is equivalent to matrix rank $n$ and linear independence of its columns. It can therefore occur only if $n\le m$. If $m=n$, the rank-nullity theorem also forces surjectivity, giving an invertible matrix; if $m>n$, the example $J$ shows why unique recovery of reachable inputs does not imply that every output is reachable. Finally, a trivial kernel guarantees exact uniqueness without guaranteeing numerical stability: the singular matrix example $A(t)$ has trivial kernel for every $t\ne 0$, even as its condition number grows without bound when $t$ approaches zero.

Let $A$ be a real positive-definite matrix and minimize the displayed quadratic function over all of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Its gradient is $Ax-b$, so its only stationary point solves the linear system $A{x}_{\ast }=b$. The matrix is an invertible matrix, making this solution exist and be unique. Completing the square around that solution proves the stronger global statement:The quadratic function is strictly convex, and its level sets above the minimum are translated ellipsoids. Positivity therefore turns solving a linear system into locating the bottom of a bowl.^[ref]

For the opening matrix $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 1\\ 1& 3\end{array}\right)$, take $b=(1,1{)}^T$ and $c=0$. Then $A^{-1}=\frac{1}{8}\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& -1\\ -1& 3\end{array}\right)$, $x_{\ast }=(1/4,1/4{)}^T$, and $f(x_{\ast })=-1/4$. Every displacement $h$ raises the value by $\frac{1}{2}{h}^{T}Ah$; along the unit eigenvectors $e_{+}$ and $e_{-}$ the increases are respectively $2s^2$ and $s^2$ for displacement $s{e}_{+}$ or $s{e}_{-}$.

For a singular positive semidefinite matrix, a solution of $Ax=b$ is still a global minimizer, but adding any kernel vector gives another. If $b$ is outside the image of a linear map defined by $A$, some kernel vector $v$ has $b^{T}v\ne 0$, and $f(sv)=c-s{b}^{T}v$ is unbounded below. For an indefinite quadratic form, a negative eigenvalue gives a direction along which the quadratic term tends to $-\infty$ regardless of $b$. Thus a stationary point alone does not establish a minimum. The same energy-difference identity extends to the quadratic variational principle for a symmetric positive operator, with additional existence hypotheses in infinite dimension.