Animated Solution for Mathematics - Matrices and Determinants: Let A be a 3×3 matrix such that ∣adj(adj(adjA))∣=124. Then ∣A−1adjA∣ is equal to
Select Answer:
Visualized Solution
Introduction to the Problem
Given: A is a 3×3 matrix.
Condition: ∣adj(adj(adjA))∣=124.
Goal: Find the value of ∣A−1adjA∣.
Property of a Single Adjoint
Recall the property: ∣adjA∣=∣A∣n−1
Here, n is the order of the matrix A.
Generalizing for Nested Adjoints
General formula for k nested adjoints:
∣adj(adj(…adjA))∣=∣A∣(n−1)k
Identifying Parameters n and k
Order of matrix n=3
Number of adjoints k=3
Base of the power: n−1=3−1=2
Setting up the Equation
Applying the formula: ∣A∣(3−1)3=124
Substituting the values: ∣A∣23=124
Simplifying the Powers
Calculating the exponent: 23=8
Simplified equation: ∣A∣8=124
Solving for ∣A∣2
Taking the 4th root on both sides:
(∣A∣8)41=(124)41
Result: ∣A∣2=12
Calculating the Determinant of A
Taking the square root: ∣A∣=12
Simplifying the surd: ∣A∣=4×3=23
Analyzing the Target Expression
Target: ∣A−1adjA∣
Using determinant property: ∣XY∣=∣X∣⋅∣Y∣
Splitting the target: ∣A−1adjA∣=∣A−1∣⋅∣adjA∣
Substituting Individual Properties
Property 1: ∣A−1∣=∣A∣1
Property 2: ∣adjA∣=∣A∣3−1=∣A∣2
Substituted Expression: ∣A∣1⋅∣A∣2
Final Simplification
Simplifying the expression: ∣A∣∣A∣2=∣A∣
Substitute the known value: ∣A∣=23
Conclusion and Key Takeaway
Final Answer:23
Key Takeaway:∣adjk(A)∣=∣A∣(n−1)k
Next Challenge: Try solving the same problem for a 4×4 matrix.
00:00 / 00:00
The Sigma Insight: Adjoint and Inverse of a Matrix
Analyzing the Setup
Welcome, fellow traveler on the journey of linear algebra. Today, we are going to demystify a problem that often intimidates students: the nested adjoint.
When you see ∣adj(adj(adjA))∣=124, it is natural to feel a bit overwhelmed. But remember, in mathematics, complexity is often just a mask for a beautiful, underlying simplicity. Let us peel back that mask together.
The Power of the Single Adjoint
Before we leap into the deep end, let us stand on solid ground. The adjoint of a matrix is a special beast, but it obeys a very elegant rule:
∣adjA∣=∣A∣n−1
Here, n is the order of our matrix. For our 3×3 matrix, n=3, so the determinant of the adjoint is simply ∣A∣3−1=∣A∣2.
This is our key. It is the bridge between the world of adjoints and the world of simple determinants.
The Generalization
Now, what happens when we nest these operations? Imagine we have a machine that takes a matrix and spits out its adjoint.
If we feed A into it, we get adjA. If we feed that result back into the machine, we get adj(adjA). Mathematically, this is a recursive process.
As we derived in our FAQs, each layer of the adjoint operation raises the power of the determinant by (n−1). Thus, for k layers, we arrive at the general formula:
∣adjk(A)∣=∣A∣(n−1)k
In our problem, n=3 and k=3. So, the exponent becomes (3−1)3=23=8.
Our equation transforms from a terrifying nested expression into the clean, manageable algebraic equation:
∣A∣8=124
The Final Simplification
Now, we solve for ∣A∣. Taking the fourth root of both sides, we get ∣A∣2=12, which means ∣A∣=12=23.
We have conquered the hardest part! Now, look at our target: ∣A−1adjA∣.
Using the multiplicative property of determinants, we split this into ∣A−1∣⋅∣adjA∣. We know that ∣A−1∣=∣A∣1 and ∣adjA∣=∣A∣2.
When we multiply these, we get:
∣A∣1⋅∣A∣2=∣A∣
The entire expression collapses beautifully into just the determinant of A. Since we already found ∣A∣=23, our final answer is 23.
Conclusion
You see? The problem was never about brute-forcing matrices. It was about recognizing the structure, applying the properties, and watching the complexity vanish.
Keep this logic in your toolkit, and no matrix problem will ever stand in your way again.