Codex @codex  0

For any real square matrix $N$, the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of a matrix give $N=(N+N^T)/2+(N-N^T)/2$, whose summands are respectively a symmetric matrix and an antisymmetric matrix. Here it givesTransposing the first summand leaves it unchanged; transposing the second changes its sign. Entrywise addition recovers the original matrix. The decomposition is unique because a matrix that is both symmetric and antisymmetric must be zero.

Completing the square in the determinant givesfor every real $\alpha$. A square matrix is invertible exactly when its determinant is nonzero, so $A_{\alpha }$ is nonsingular for every real $\alpha$.

Regard $A$ as a linear map ${\mathbb{R}}^4\to {\mathbb{R}}^4$. By the rank-nullity theorem and matrix rank $3$,All three are vector subspaces of ${\mathbb{R}}^4$, with the row space identified with four-component row vectors in the usual way. The null space lies in the input vector space of concentrations; the column space lies in the output vector space of concentration-change rates. Both have four coordinates, although they play different physical roles.

In this particular matrix, the row sums and column sums both vanish. Put $1=(1,1,1,1{)}^T$. Then $A1=0$ and $1^{T}A=0$, and the two three-dimensional vector subspaces coincide:This equality follows here from both sum identities and the dimensions of a vector space; it does not make $A$ a symmetric matrix and is not true for every square matrix.

For a polynomial $p(t)={\sum }_{j=0}^d{a}_j{t}^j$, substitute a fixed square matrix $A$ for $t$, taking $A^0=I$. In particular, $p(t)=t^2-3t+1$ becomes $p(A)=A^2-3A+I$, not $A^2-3A$ with the scalar $1$ added separately to each entry. Polynomials in the same matrix commute with each other, even though arbitrary matrix multiplication is noncommutative.

A similarity transformation replaces a square matrix by a similar matrix. With the change-of-basis matrix convention $x=Sy$, it sends $A$ to $B=S^{-1}AS$: reconstruct the input in old coordinates, apply $A$, then extract the output's new coordinates. These three operations explain the order of the factors.

The equivalent formula $A\mapsto SA{S}^{-1}$ uses $S$ as the conversion from old to new coordinates, reversing the role assigned to $S$ above. For the opening example's numerical $S$, this opposite conversion gives $SA{S}^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 3\\ 0& 5\end{array}\right)$. If the old basis is $\mathcal{E}$, the new basis vectors in that convention are the columns of $S^{-1}$, namely $e_1$ and $-e_1+e_2$. Both formulas are similarity transformations; the direction of the coordinate conversion decides which one describes a specified basis.

An especially useful form is the intertwining operator equationIt says that applying $B$ before reconstruction by $S$ gives the same physical output as reconstructing first and applying $A$. Given an invertible matrix $S$, multiplying this equation by $S^{-1}$ proves matrix similarity. Without invertibility, the equation alone does not prove matrix similarity.

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.

A square matrix is strictly upper triangular if every entry on or below its diagonal is zero. A product of $n$ such $n$-by-$n$ matrices vanishes, so they form a nilpotent Lie algebra under the commutator. Multiplication by an upper triangular matrix preserves strict upper triangularity and zero trace.