1
$\begingroup$

I'm reviewing for my final and I encountered a statement that puzzles me. Let $u,v$ be vectors in $\Bbb R^n$ that are expressed in column form, and let $A$ be an invertible $n\times n$ matrix. Then we can express the Euclidean inner product on $\Bbb R^n$ to be $\langle u,v\rangle = Au \cdot Av$.

Why does $A$ have to be an invertible matrix? I had a review question asking if everything but the invertibility property of $A$ held, if the statement was true, and the solutions in the back says that it was false.

Thanks in advance!

  • 0
    What do you mean by $*$? Is that the dot product?2012-12-09
  • 0
    Yes it is, I don't know how to edit the post such that I can change it though!2012-12-09
  • 0
    I'm confused about the language. When you say "The Euclidean inner product", I think $\langle u,v\rangle=u_1v_1+\ldots+u_nv_n$. Take for instance $A=2I$; then $Au\cdot Av=2u_12v_1+\ldots+2u_n2v_n=4\langle u,v\rangle$. So $Au\cdot Av\neq \langle u,v\rangle$. Do you mean we can express *any* inner product by a matrix $A$...?2012-12-09
  • 0
    I think what OP wants is to define the Euclidean product in the usual way, and then more generally define a special bilinear function in terms of $A$ and the usual Euclidean product.2012-12-09
  • 0
    if the matrix A is not the identity matrix, then we can call that inner product a weighted inner product. But I think the textbook is just trying to generalize inner products generated by matrices for this specific question2012-12-09

1 Answers 1

2

By definition an inner product must have the property that $\langle u,u\rangle=0$ if and only if $u=0$.

Suppose $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is an inner product, $A$ is not invertible, and $\langle u,v\rangle_A:=\langle Au,Av\rangle$ is a bilinear form; can you show that there is a nonzero vector $u$ for which $\langle u,u\rangle_A=0$? $\color{White}{\mathrm{Hint}:Au=0\implies \langle u,u\rangle_A=0.}$

  • 0
    we haven't discussed bilinear form in my linear algebra course, is it required to prove that the matrix A has to be invertible?2012-12-09
  • 0
    @user43956 "Bilinear form" just means a function of two vector arguments that is linear in each argument. An inner product is essentially a bilinear form with the added condition that $\langle u,u\rangle=0$ if and only if $u=0$ (plus conjugate-symmetry). You do not need to know the term "bilinear form" for this proof; I just wanted to have a noun at hand to slap onto $\langle u,v\rangle_A$ (otherwise what type of thing would we refer to it as?).2012-12-09
  • 0
    Alright, so going back to your question... wouldn't only the zero vector hold for the bilinear form that we are discussing?2012-12-09
  • 0
    No. What if $Au=0$ but $u\ne0$?2012-12-09
  • 0
    so u would be contained in the null space of A?2012-12-09
  • 0
    If $Au=0$ then $u$ would be in the null space of $A$, yes.2012-12-09
  • 0
    So the property that the matrix A has only the zero vector as the null space has to hold, because the inner product of two vectors u, v can equal to zero iff u or v are zero and/or they are orthogonal to each other?2012-12-09
  • 0
    @user43956 The iff property of inner products does not say anything about *two* vectors independently being involved. For instance, we can have $u$ and $v$ in $\Bbb R^n$ such that $\langle u,v\rangle=0$ with the usual Euclidean inner product (they merely have to be orthogonal). The conclusion is, $A$ must be invertible, because otherwise there is a nonzero $u$ for which $Au=0$, in which case we have $$\langle u,u\rangle_A=\langle Au,Au\rangle=\langle0,0\rangle=0$$ even though $u\ne0$, contrary to the noted property of inner products.2012-12-09