Is division of matrices possible?












16














Is it possible to divide a matrix by another? If yes, What will be the result of $dfrac AB$ if
$$
A = begin{pmatrix}
a & b \
c & d \
end{pmatrix},
B = begin{pmatrix}
w & x \
y & z \
end{pmatrix}?
$$










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 6




    see for example here. You'll have to distinguish between $AB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}A$.
    – Raymond Manzoni
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:43












  • To add various types of brackets around entries of a matrix, you can use pmatrix or bmatrix or other variants. See tutorial at meta.
    – Martin Sleziak
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:49
















16














Is it possible to divide a matrix by another? If yes, What will be the result of $dfrac AB$ if
$$
A = begin{pmatrix}
a & b \
c & d \
end{pmatrix},
B = begin{pmatrix}
w & x \
y & z \
end{pmatrix}?
$$










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 6




    see for example here. You'll have to distinguish between $AB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}A$.
    – Raymond Manzoni
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:43












  • To add various types of brackets around entries of a matrix, you can use pmatrix or bmatrix or other variants. See tutorial at meta.
    – Martin Sleziak
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:49














16












16








16


6





Is it possible to divide a matrix by another? If yes, What will be the result of $dfrac AB$ if
$$
A = begin{pmatrix}
a & b \
c & d \
end{pmatrix},
B = begin{pmatrix}
w & x \
y & z \
end{pmatrix}?
$$










share|cite|improve this question















Is it possible to divide a matrix by another? If yes, What will be the result of $dfrac AB$ if
$$
A = begin{pmatrix}
a & b \
c & d \
end{pmatrix},
B = begin{pmatrix}
w & x \
y & z \
end{pmatrix}?
$$







matrices divisibility






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 3 '12 at 18:21







user2468

















asked Nov 3 '12 at 16:39









Pranit Bauva

4472614




4472614








  • 6




    see for example here. You'll have to distinguish between $AB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}A$.
    – Raymond Manzoni
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:43












  • To add various types of brackets around entries of a matrix, you can use pmatrix or bmatrix or other variants. See tutorial at meta.
    – Martin Sleziak
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:49














  • 6




    see for example here. You'll have to distinguish between $AB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}A$.
    – Raymond Manzoni
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:43












  • To add various types of brackets around entries of a matrix, you can use pmatrix or bmatrix or other variants. See tutorial at meta.
    – Martin Sleziak
    Nov 3 '12 at 16:49








6




6




see for example here. You'll have to distinguish between $AB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}A$.
– Raymond Manzoni
Nov 3 '12 at 16:43






see for example here. You'll have to distinguish between $AB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}A$.
– Raymond Manzoni
Nov 3 '12 at 16:43














To add various types of brackets around entries of a matrix, you can use pmatrix or bmatrix or other variants. See tutorial at meta.
– Martin Sleziak
Nov 3 '12 at 16:49




To add various types of brackets around entries of a matrix, you can use pmatrix or bmatrix or other variants. See tutorial at meta.
– Martin Sleziak
Nov 3 '12 at 16:49










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















26














For ordinary numbers $frac{a}{b}$ means the solution to the equation $xb=a$. This is the same as $bx=a$, but since matrix multiplication is not commutative, there are two different possible generalizations of "division" to matrices.



If $B$ is invertible, then you can form $AB^{-1}$ or $B^{-1}A$, but these are not in general the same matrix. They are the solutions to $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ respectively.



If $B$ is not invertible, then $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ may have solutions, but the solutions will not be unique. So in that situation speaking of "matrix division" is even less warranted.






share|cite|improve this answer































    5














    There is a way to performa sort of division , but I am not sure if it is the way you are looking for. For motivation ,consider the ordinary real numbers $mathbb{R}$ . We have that for two real numbers, $x/y$ is really the same as multiplying x and $y^{-1}=1/y$. We call $y^{-1}$ the inverse of y, and note that it has the property that $yy^{-1}=1.$



    The same goes for different algebraic structures. That is, for two elements x,y in this algebraic structure we define $x/y$ as $xy^{-1}$ (under some operation). Most notably, we have a notion of division in any division ring (hence the name!) . It turns out that if you consider invertible $n times n$ matrices with addition and ordinary matrix multiplication, there is a sensible way to define division since every invertible matrix has well, an inverse. So just to help you grip what an inverse is, say that you have a 2x2 matrix $$A= begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}.$$
    The inverse of A is then given by
    $$A^{-1} = dfrac{1}{(ad-bc)} begin{bmatrix} d & -b \ -c & a end{bmatrix}$$
    and you should check that $AA^{-1}=E$, the identity matrix. Now, for two matrices $B$ and $A$, $B/A = BA^{-1}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
      – Dedalus
      Apr 2 '14 at 13:02





















    4














    Normaly matrix division is defined as $frac{A}{B}=AB^{-1}$ where $B^{-1}$ stands for inverse matrix of $B$. In case when inverse doesn't exist so called pseudoinverse may be used.






    share|cite|improve this answer































      2














      We can say $$frac{A}{B}=Atimes B^{-1}$$ where $B^{-1}$ is inverse matrice of $B$






      share|cite|improve this answer

















      • 1




        if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
        – user31280
        Nov 3 '12 at 18:29








      • 1




        That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
        – Adi Dani
        Nov 3 '12 at 19:02



















      1














      There are two issues: first, that matrices have divisors of zero; second, that matrix multiplication is in general not commutative.



      To give meaning to $A/B$, you need to give meaning to $I/B$ (because then $A/B=A(I/B)$. Now, no one ever writes $I/B$, people actually write $B^{-1}$. Anyway, what is $B^{-1}$? It should be a matrix such that multiplied by $B$ gives you the identity. Now, there exist nonzero matrices $C$, $B$ with $BC=0$. If $B$ had an inverse $B^{-1}$, we would have
      $$
      0=B^{-1}0=B^{-1}BC=C,
      $$
      a contradiction. So such a matrix $B$ cannot have an inverse, i.e. "$I/B$" does not make sense.



      The invertible matrices are exactly those with nonzero determinant. So, if $det Bne0$, then $AB^{-1}$ does make sense.



      In you case, that would be the condition $wz-yxne0$. In that case,
      $$
      begin{bmatrix}w&x\ y&zend{bmatrix}^{-1}=frac1{wz-yx}begin{bmatrix}z&-x\ -y&wend{bmatrix}
      $$



      The second issue is a non-issue, because it can be proven that, for matrices, if $B^{-1}A=I$, then $AB^{-1}=I$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        0














        Do you know why matrix multiplication is defined in such a weird way ? It is defined thus, so that the effect on a column vector of left-multiplying it by one matrix, and then left-multiplying the result by another matrix, is exactly the same as the effect of left-multiplying by a single matrix that is the product of those two matrices. That is, matrix multiplication corresponds to composition of linear operators. If you didn't know that already, then you should try to convince yourself that it's true, in a simple class of special cases. I would recommend trying a 2 by 1 column vector with variables for entries, and two 2 by 2 matrices, also with variables for entries. So "dividing by" a matrix would correspond to "undoing" the effect of a linear operator. For instance, rotating the plane clockwise by a certain angle "undoes" the anticlockwise rotation of the plane by the same angle. However, there are plenty of linear operators that can't be undone (because they have squashed something flat), and the matrices representing these operators (with respect to any given basis) must therefore be not-dividable-by. This is unlike the situation with the real numbers, for instance, in which there is only one of them by which you can't divide, namely zero.






        share|cite|improve this answer





























          0














          Element-wise division is frequently used to normalize matrices in R o MatLab. For instance, in R if dtm is a contingency matrix counting occurrences of something, you can normalize the rows so that all the rows sum 1.0 as:



          dtm.proportions <- dtm / rowSums(dtm)


          Or normalize the columns transposing the matrix first:



          dtm.proportions <- t(t(dtm)/colSums(dtm))





          share|cite|improve this answer




















            protected by Community Apr 1 '14 at 11:51



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes








            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            26














            For ordinary numbers $frac{a}{b}$ means the solution to the equation $xb=a$. This is the same as $bx=a$, but since matrix multiplication is not commutative, there are two different possible generalizations of "division" to matrices.



            If $B$ is invertible, then you can form $AB^{-1}$ or $B^{-1}A$, but these are not in general the same matrix. They are the solutions to $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ respectively.



            If $B$ is not invertible, then $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ may have solutions, but the solutions will not be unique. So in that situation speaking of "matrix division" is even less warranted.






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              26














              For ordinary numbers $frac{a}{b}$ means the solution to the equation $xb=a$. This is the same as $bx=a$, but since matrix multiplication is not commutative, there are two different possible generalizations of "division" to matrices.



              If $B$ is invertible, then you can form $AB^{-1}$ or $B^{-1}A$, but these are not in general the same matrix. They are the solutions to $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ respectively.



              If $B$ is not invertible, then $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ may have solutions, but the solutions will not be unique. So in that situation speaking of "matrix division" is even less warranted.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                26












                26








                26






                For ordinary numbers $frac{a}{b}$ means the solution to the equation $xb=a$. This is the same as $bx=a$, but since matrix multiplication is not commutative, there are two different possible generalizations of "division" to matrices.



                If $B$ is invertible, then you can form $AB^{-1}$ or $B^{-1}A$, but these are not in general the same matrix. They are the solutions to $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ respectively.



                If $B$ is not invertible, then $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ may have solutions, but the solutions will not be unique. So in that situation speaking of "matrix division" is even less warranted.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                For ordinary numbers $frac{a}{b}$ means the solution to the equation $xb=a$. This is the same as $bx=a$, but since matrix multiplication is not commutative, there are two different possible generalizations of "division" to matrices.



                If $B$ is invertible, then you can form $AB^{-1}$ or $B^{-1}A$, but these are not in general the same matrix. They are the solutions to $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ respectively.



                If $B$ is not invertible, then $XB=A$ and $BX=A$ may have solutions, but the solutions will not be unique. So in that situation speaking of "matrix division" is even less warranted.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 3 '12 at 16:56

























                answered Nov 3 '12 at 16:46









                Henning Makholm

                237k16302537




                237k16302537























                    5














                    There is a way to performa sort of division , but I am not sure if it is the way you are looking for. For motivation ,consider the ordinary real numbers $mathbb{R}$ . We have that for two real numbers, $x/y$ is really the same as multiplying x and $y^{-1}=1/y$. We call $y^{-1}$ the inverse of y, and note that it has the property that $yy^{-1}=1.$



                    The same goes for different algebraic structures. That is, for two elements x,y in this algebraic structure we define $x/y$ as $xy^{-1}$ (under some operation). Most notably, we have a notion of division in any division ring (hence the name!) . It turns out that if you consider invertible $n times n$ matrices with addition and ordinary matrix multiplication, there is a sensible way to define division since every invertible matrix has well, an inverse. So just to help you grip what an inverse is, say that you have a 2x2 matrix $$A= begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}.$$
                    The inverse of A is then given by
                    $$A^{-1} = dfrac{1}{(ad-bc)} begin{bmatrix} d & -b \ -c & a end{bmatrix}$$
                    and you should check that $AA^{-1}=E$, the identity matrix. Now, for two matrices $B$ and $A$, $B/A = BA^{-1}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
                      – Dedalus
                      Apr 2 '14 at 13:02


















                    5














                    There is a way to performa sort of division , but I am not sure if it is the way you are looking for. For motivation ,consider the ordinary real numbers $mathbb{R}$ . We have that for two real numbers, $x/y$ is really the same as multiplying x and $y^{-1}=1/y$. We call $y^{-1}$ the inverse of y, and note that it has the property that $yy^{-1}=1.$



                    The same goes for different algebraic structures. That is, for two elements x,y in this algebraic structure we define $x/y$ as $xy^{-1}$ (under some operation). Most notably, we have a notion of division in any division ring (hence the name!) . It turns out that if you consider invertible $n times n$ matrices with addition and ordinary matrix multiplication, there is a sensible way to define division since every invertible matrix has well, an inverse. So just to help you grip what an inverse is, say that you have a 2x2 matrix $$A= begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}.$$
                    The inverse of A is then given by
                    $$A^{-1} = dfrac{1}{(ad-bc)} begin{bmatrix} d & -b \ -c & a end{bmatrix}$$
                    and you should check that $AA^{-1}=E$, the identity matrix. Now, for two matrices $B$ and $A$, $B/A = BA^{-1}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
                      – Dedalus
                      Apr 2 '14 at 13:02
















                    5












                    5








                    5






                    There is a way to performa sort of division , but I am not sure if it is the way you are looking for. For motivation ,consider the ordinary real numbers $mathbb{R}$ . We have that for two real numbers, $x/y$ is really the same as multiplying x and $y^{-1}=1/y$. We call $y^{-1}$ the inverse of y, and note that it has the property that $yy^{-1}=1.$



                    The same goes for different algebraic structures. That is, for two elements x,y in this algebraic structure we define $x/y$ as $xy^{-1}$ (under some operation). Most notably, we have a notion of division in any division ring (hence the name!) . It turns out that if you consider invertible $n times n$ matrices with addition and ordinary matrix multiplication, there is a sensible way to define division since every invertible matrix has well, an inverse. So just to help you grip what an inverse is, say that you have a 2x2 matrix $$A= begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}.$$
                    The inverse of A is then given by
                    $$A^{-1} = dfrac{1}{(ad-bc)} begin{bmatrix} d & -b \ -c & a end{bmatrix}$$
                    and you should check that $AA^{-1}=E$, the identity matrix. Now, for two matrices $B$ and $A$, $B/A = BA^{-1}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    There is a way to performa sort of division , but I am not sure if it is the way you are looking for. For motivation ,consider the ordinary real numbers $mathbb{R}$ . We have that for two real numbers, $x/y$ is really the same as multiplying x and $y^{-1}=1/y$. We call $y^{-1}$ the inverse of y, and note that it has the property that $yy^{-1}=1.$



                    The same goes for different algebraic structures. That is, for two elements x,y in this algebraic structure we define $x/y$ as $xy^{-1}$ (under some operation). Most notably, we have a notion of division in any division ring (hence the name!) . It turns out that if you consider invertible $n times n$ matrices with addition and ordinary matrix multiplication, there is a sensible way to define division since every invertible matrix has well, an inverse. So just to help you grip what an inverse is, say that you have a 2x2 matrix $$A= begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}.$$
                    The inverse of A is then given by
                    $$A^{-1} = dfrac{1}{(ad-bc)} begin{bmatrix} d & -b \ -c & a end{bmatrix}$$
                    and you should check that $AA^{-1}=E$, the identity matrix. Now, for two matrices $B$ and $A$, $B/A = BA^{-1}$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Nov 3 '12 at 16:55









                    Dedalus

                    2,00711936




                    2,00711936












                    • I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
                      – Dedalus
                      Apr 2 '14 at 13:02




















                    • I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
                      – Dedalus
                      Apr 2 '14 at 13:02


















                    I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
                    – Dedalus
                    Apr 2 '14 at 13:02






                    I know this is not the most eloquent answer, but why the downvote?
                    – Dedalus
                    Apr 2 '14 at 13:02













                    4














                    Normaly matrix division is defined as $frac{A}{B}=AB^{-1}$ where $B^{-1}$ stands for inverse matrix of $B$. In case when inverse doesn't exist so called pseudoinverse may be used.






                    share|cite|improve this answer




























                      4














                      Normaly matrix division is defined as $frac{A}{B}=AB^{-1}$ where $B^{-1}$ stands for inverse matrix of $B$. In case when inverse doesn't exist so called pseudoinverse may be used.






                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                        4












                        4








                        4






                        Normaly matrix division is defined as $frac{A}{B}=AB^{-1}$ where $B^{-1}$ stands for inverse matrix of $B$. In case when inverse doesn't exist so called pseudoinverse may be used.






                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        Normaly matrix division is defined as $frac{A}{B}=AB^{-1}$ where $B^{-1}$ stands for inverse matrix of $B$. In case when inverse doesn't exist so called pseudoinverse may be used.







                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        edited Nov 3 '12 at 17:35









                        Martin Sleziak

                        44.7k7115270




                        44.7k7115270










                        answered Nov 3 '12 at 16:45









                        Mykolas

                        697616




                        697616























                            2














                            We can say $$frac{A}{B}=Atimes B^{-1}$$ where $B^{-1}$ is inverse matrice of $B$






                            share|cite|improve this answer

















                            • 1




                              if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
                              – user31280
                              Nov 3 '12 at 18:29








                            • 1




                              That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
                              – Adi Dani
                              Nov 3 '12 at 19:02
















                            2














                            We can say $$frac{A}{B}=Atimes B^{-1}$$ where $B^{-1}$ is inverse matrice of $B$






                            share|cite|improve this answer

















                            • 1




                              if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
                              – user31280
                              Nov 3 '12 at 18:29








                            • 1




                              That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
                              – Adi Dani
                              Nov 3 '12 at 19:02














                            2












                            2








                            2






                            We can say $$frac{A}{B}=Atimes B^{-1}$$ where $B^{-1}$ is inverse matrice of $B$






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            We can say $$frac{A}{B}=Atimes B^{-1}$$ where $B^{-1}$ is inverse matrice of $B$







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 3 '12 at 16:46









                            Adi Dani

                            15.3k32246




                            15.3k32246








                            • 1




                              if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
                              – user31280
                              Nov 3 '12 at 18:29








                            • 1




                              That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
                              – Adi Dani
                              Nov 3 '12 at 19:02














                            • 1




                              if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
                              – user31280
                              Nov 3 '12 at 18:29








                            • 1




                              That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
                              – Adi Dani
                              Nov 3 '12 at 19:02








                            1




                            1




                            if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
                            – user31280
                            Nov 3 '12 at 18:29






                            if $ cfrac AB = A times B^{-1}$ then what is $B^{-1} times A$?
                            – user31280
                            Nov 3 '12 at 18:29






                            1




                            1




                            That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
                            – Adi Dani
                            Nov 3 '12 at 19:02




                            That is an other possibility since product of matrices is not commutative.So division of matrices can not be defined in an unique way
                            – Adi Dani
                            Nov 3 '12 at 19:02











                            1














                            There are two issues: first, that matrices have divisors of zero; second, that matrix multiplication is in general not commutative.



                            To give meaning to $A/B$, you need to give meaning to $I/B$ (because then $A/B=A(I/B)$. Now, no one ever writes $I/B$, people actually write $B^{-1}$. Anyway, what is $B^{-1}$? It should be a matrix such that multiplied by $B$ gives you the identity. Now, there exist nonzero matrices $C$, $B$ with $BC=0$. If $B$ had an inverse $B^{-1}$, we would have
                            $$
                            0=B^{-1}0=B^{-1}BC=C,
                            $$
                            a contradiction. So such a matrix $B$ cannot have an inverse, i.e. "$I/B$" does not make sense.



                            The invertible matrices are exactly those with nonzero determinant. So, if $det Bne0$, then $AB^{-1}$ does make sense.



                            In you case, that would be the condition $wz-yxne0$. In that case,
                            $$
                            begin{bmatrix}w&x\ y&zend{bmatrix}^{-1}=frac1{wz-yx}begin{bmatrix}z&-x\ -y&wend{bmatrix}
                            $$



                            The second issue is a non-issue, because it can be proven that, for matrices, if $B^{-1}A=I$, then $AB^{-1}=I$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                              1














                              There are two issues: first, that matrices have divisors of zero; second, that matrix multiplication is in general not commutative.



                              To give meaning to $A/B$, you need to give meaning to $I/B$ (because then $A/B=A(I/B)$. Now, no one ever writes $I/B$, people actually write $B^{-1}$. Anyway, what is $B^{-1}$? It should be a matrix such that multiplied by $B$ gives you the identity. Now, there exist nonzero matrices $C$, $B$ with $BC=0$. If $B$ had an inverse $B^{-1}$, we would have
                              $$
                              0=B^{-1}0=B^{-1}BC=C,
                              $$
                              a contradiction. So such a matrix $B$ cannot have an inverse, i.e. "$I/B$" does not make sense.



                              The invertible matrices are exactly those with nonzero determinant. So, if $det Bne0$, then $AB^{-1}$ does make sense.



                              In you case, that would be the condition $wz-yxne0$. In that case,
                              $$
                              begin{bmatrix}w&x\ y&zend{bmatrix}^{-1}=frac1{wz-yx}begin{bmatrix}z&-x\ -y&wend{bmatrix}
                              $$



                              The second issue is a non-issue, because it can be proven that, for matrices, if $B^{-1}A=I$, then $AB^{-1}=I$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                1












                                1








                                1






                                There are two issues: first, that matrices have divisors of zero; second, that matrix multiplication is in general not commutative.



                                To give meaning to $A/B$, you need to give meaning to $I/B$ (because then $A/B=A(I/B)$. Now, no one ever writes $I/B$, people actually write $B^{-1}$. Anyway, what is $B^{-1}$? It should be a matrix such that multiplied by $B$ gives you the identity. Now, there exist nonzero matrices $C$, $B$ with $BC=0$. If $B$ had an inverse $B^{-1}$, we would have
                                $$
                                0=B^{-1}0=B^{-1}BC=C,
                                $$
                                a contradiction. So such a matrix $B$ cannot have an inverse, i.e. "$I/B$" does not make sense.



                                The invertible matrices are exactly those with nonzero determinant. So, if $det Bne0$, then $AB^{-1}$ does make sense.



                                In you case, that would be the condition $wz-yxne0$. In that case,
                                $$
                                begin{bmatrix}w&x\ y&zend{bmatrix}^{-1}=frac1{wz-yx}begin{bmatrix}z&-x\ -y&wend{bmatrix}
                                $$



                                The second issue is a non-issue, because it can be proven that, for matrices, if $B^{-1}A=I$, then $AB^{-1}=I$.






                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                There are two issues: first, that matrices have divisors of zero; second, that matrix multiplication is in general not commutative.



                                To give meaning to $A/B$, you need to give meaning to $I/B$ (because then $A/B=A(I/B)$. Now, no one ever writes $I/B$, people actually write $B^{-1}$. Anyway, what is $B^{-1}$? It should be a matrix such that multiplied by $B$ gives you the identity. Now, there exist nonzero matrices $C$, $B$ with $BC=0$. If $B$ had an inverse $B^{-1}$, we would have
                                $$
                                0=B^{-1}0=B^{-1}BC=C,
                                $$
                                a contradiction. So such a matrix $B$ cannot have an inverse, i.e. "$I/B$" does not make sense.



                                The invertible matrices are exactly those with nonzero determinant. So, if $det Bne0$, then $AB^{-1}$ does make sense.



                                In you case, that would be the condition $wz-yxne0$. In that case,
                                $$
                                begin{bmatrix}w&x\ y&zend{bmatrix}^{-1}=frac1{wz-yx}begin{bmatrix}z&-x\ -y&wend{bmatrix}
                                $$



                                The second issue is a non-issue, because it can be proven that, for matrices, if $B^{-1}A=I$, then $AB^{-1}=I$.







                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                answered Nov 3 '12 at 16:50









                                Martin Argerami

                                124k1176174




                                124k1176174























                                    0














                                    Do you know why matrix multiplication is defined in such a weird way ? It is defined thus, so that the effect on a column vector of left-multiplying it by one matrix, and then left-multiplying the result by another matrix, is exactly the same as the effect of left-multiplying by a single matrix that is the product of those two matrices. That is, matrix multiplication corresponds to composition of linear operators. If you didn't know that already, then you should try to convince yourself that it's true, in a simple class of special cases. I would recommend trying a 2 by 1 column vector with variables for entries, and two 2 by 2 matrices, also with variables for entries. So "dividing by" a matrix would correspond to "undoing" the effect of a linear operator. For instance, rotating the plane clockwise by a certain angle "undoes" the anticlockwise rotation of the plane by the same angle. However, there are plenty of linear operators that can't be undone (because they have squashed something flat), and the matrices representing these operators (with respect to any given basis) must therefore be not-dividable-by. This is unlike the situation with the real numbers, for instance, in which there is only one of them by which you can't divide, namely zero.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer


























                                      0














                                      Do you know why matrix multiplication is defined in such a weird way ? It is defined thus, so that the effect on a column vector of left-multiplying it by one matrix, and then left-multiplying the result by another matrix, is exactly the same as the effect of left-multiplying by a single matrix that is the product of those two matrices. That is, matrix multiplication corresponds to composition of linear operators. If you didn't know that already, then you should try to convince yourself that it's true, in a simple class of special cases. I would recommend trying a 2 by 1 column vector with variables for entries, and two 2 by 2 matrices, also with variables for entries. So "dividing by" a matrix would correspond to "undoing" the effect of a linear operator. For instance, rotating the plane clockwise by a certain angle "undoes" the anticlockwise rotation of the plane by the same angle. However, there are plenty of linear operators that can't be undone (because they have squashed something flat), and the matrices representing these operators (with respect to any given basis) must therefore be not-dividable-by. This is unlike the situation with the real numbers, for instance, in which there is only one of them by which you can't divide, namely zero.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                                        0












                                        0








                                        0






                                        Do you know why matrix multiplication is defined in such a weird way ? It is defined thus, so that the effect on a column vector of left-multiplying it by one matrix, and then left-multiplying the result by another matrix, is exactly the same as the effect of left-multiplying by a single matrix that is the product of those two matrices. That is, matrix multiplication corresponds to composition of linear operators. If you didn't know that already, then you should try to convince yourself that it's true, in a simple class of special cases. I would recommend trying a 2 by 1 column vector with variables for entries, and two 2 by 2 matrices, also with variables for entries. So "dividing by" a matrix would correspond to "undoing" the effect of a linear operator. For instance, rotating the plane clockwise by a certain angle "undoes" the anticlockwise rotation of the plane by the same angle. However, there are plenty of linear operators that can't be undone (because they have squashed something flat), and the matrices representing these operators (with respect to any given basis) must therefore be not-dividable-by. This is unlike the situation with the real numbers, for instance, in which there is only one of them by which you can't divide, namely zero.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer












                                        Do you know why matrix multiplication is defined in such a weird way ? It is defined thus, so that the effect on a column vector of left-multiplying it by one matrix, and then left-multiplying the result by another matrix, is exactly the same as the effect of left-multiplying by a single matrix that is the product of those two matrices. That is, matrix multiplication corresponds to composition of linear operators. If you didn't know that already, then you should try to convince yourself that it's true, in a simple class of special cases. I would recommend trying a 2 by 1 column vector with variables for entries, and two 2 by 2 matrices, also with variables for entries. So "dividing by" a matrix would correspond to "undoing" the effect of a linear operator. For instance, rotating the plane clockwise by a certain angle "undoes" the anticlockwise rotation of the plane by the same angle. However, there are plenty of linear operators that can't be undone (because they have squashed something flat), and the matrices representing these operators (with respect to any given basis) must therefore be not-dividable-by. This is unlike the situation with the real numbers, for instance, in which there is only one of them by which you can't divide, namely zero.







                                        share|cite|improve this answer












                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer










                                        answered Aug 17 at 18:23









                                        Simon

                                        628512




                                        628512























                                            0














                                            Element-wise division is frequently used to normalize matrices in R o MatLab. For instance, in R if dtm is a contingency matrix counting occurrences of something, you can normalize the rows so that all the rows sum 1.0 as:



                                            dtm.proportions <- dtm / rowSums(dtm)


                                            Or normalize the columns transposing the matrix first:



                                            dtm.proportions <- t(t(dtm)/colSums(dtm))





                                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                                              0














                                              Element-wise division is frequently used to normalize matrices in R o MatLab. For instance, in R if dtm is a contingency matrix counting occurrences of something, you can normalize the rows so that all the rows sum 1.0 as:



                                              dtm.proportions <- dtm / rowSums(dtm)


                                              Or normalize the columns transposing the matrix first:



                                              dtm.proportions <- t(t(dtm)/colSums(dtm))





                                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                                0












                                                0








                                                0






                                                Element-wise division is frequently used to normalize matrices in R o MatLab. For instance, in R if dtm is a contingency matrix counting occurrences of something, you can normalize the rows so that all the rows sum 1.0 as:



                                                dtm.proportions <- dtm / rowSums(dtm)


                                                Or normalize the columns transposing the matrix first:



                                                dtm.proportions <- t(t(dtm)/colSums(dtm))





                                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                                Element-wise division is frequently used to normalize matrices in R o MatLab. For instance, in R if dtm is a contingency matrix counting occurrences of something, you can normalize the rows so that all the rows sum 1.0 as:



                                                dtm.proportions <- dtm / rowSums(dtm)


                                                Or normalize the columns transposing the matrix first:



                                                dtm.proportions <- t(t(dtm)/colSums(dtm))






                                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                                answered Dec 2 at 9:55









                                                Freeman

                                                1184




                                                1184

















                                                    protected by Community Apr 1 '14 at 11:51



                                                    Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Berounka

                                                    Sphinx de Gizeh

                                                    Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...