Research article

Characterizations of matrix equalities involving the sums and products of multiple matrices and their generalized inverse

  • Received: 24 March 2023 Revised: 25 July 2023 Accepted: 09 August 2023 Published: 30 August 2023
  • It is common knowledge that matrix equalities involving ordinary algebraic operations of inverses or generalized inverses of given matrices can be constructed arbitrarily from theoretical and applied points of view because of the noncommutativity of the matrix algebra and singularity of given matrices. Two of such matrix equality examples are given by A1Bg11C1+A2Bg22C2++AkBgkkCk=D and A1Bg11A2Bg22AkBgkkAk+1=A, where A1, A2, , Ak+1, C1, C2, , Ck and A and D are given, and Bg11, Bg22, , Bgkk are generalized inverses of matrices B1, B2, , Bk. These two matrix equalities include many concrete cases for different choices of the generalized inverses, and they have been attractive research topics in the area of generalized inverse theory. As an ongoing investigation of this subject, the present author presents in this article several groups of new results and facts on constructing and characterizing the above matrix equalities for the mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices with k=2,3 by using some elementary methods, including a series of explicit rank equalities for block matrices.

    Citation: Yongge Tian. Characterizations of matrix equalities involving the sums and products of multiple matrices and their generalized inverse[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(9): 5866-5893. doi: 10.3934/era.2023298

    Related Papers:

    [1] D. Mosić, P. S. Stanimirović, L. A. Kazakovtsev . The m-weak group inverse for rectangular matrices. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(3): 1822-1843. doi: 10.3934/era.2024083
    [2] Daochang Zhang, Dijana Mosić, Liangyun Chen . On the Drazin inverse of anti-triangular block matrices. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2428-2445. doi: 10.3934/era.2022124
    [3] Jia-Min Luo, Hou-Biao Li, Wei-Bo Wei . Block splitting preconditioner for time-space fractional diffusion equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(3): 780-797. doi: 10.3934/era.2022041
    [4] Xing Zhang, Xiaoyu Jiang, Zhaolin Jiang, Heejung Byun . Algorithms for solving a class of real quasi-symmetric Toeplitz linear systems and its applications. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(4): 1966-1981. doi: 10.3934/era.2023101
    [5] Jiaqi Qi, Yaqiang Wang . Subdirect Sums of GSDD1 matrices. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(6): 3989-4010. doi: 10.3934/era.2024179
    [6] Yi Liu, Lei Gao, Tianxu Zhao . Partially doubly strictly diagonally dominant matrices with applications. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(5): 2994-3013. doi: 10.3934/era.2023151
    [7] Yan Li, Yaqiang Wang . Some new results for B1-matrices. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 4773-4787. doi: 10.3934/era.2023244
    [8] Agustín Moreno Cañadas, Robinson-Julian Serna, Isaías David Marín Gaviria . Zavadskij modules over cluster-tilted algebras of type A. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(9): 3435-3451. doi: 10.3934/era.2022175
    [9] ShinJa Jeong, Mi-Young Kim . Computational aspects of the multiscale discontinuous Galerkin method for convection-diffusion-reaction problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 1991-2006. doi: 10.3934/era.2020101
    [10] Tingting Du, Zhengang Wu . On the reciprocal sums of products of mth-order linear recurrence sequences. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(9): 5766-5779. doi: 10.3934/era.2023293
  • It is common knowledge that matrix equalities involving ordinary algebraic operations of inverses or generalized inverses of given matrices can be constructed arbitrarily from theoretical and applied points of view because of the noncommutativity of the matrix algebra and singularity of given matrices. Two of such matrix equality examples are given by A1Bg11C1+A2Bg22C2++AkBgkkCk=D and A1Bg11A2Bg22AkBgkkAk+1=A, where A1, A2, , Ak+1, C1, C2, , Ck and A and D are given, and Bg11, Bg22, , Bgkk are generalized inverses of matrices B1, B2, , Bk. These two matrix equalities include many concrete cases for different choices of the generalized inverses, and they have been attractive research topics in the area of generalized inverse theory. As an ongoing investigation of this subject, the present author presents in this article several groups of new results and facts on constructing and characterizing the above matrix equalities for the mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices with k=2,3 by using some elementary methods, including a series of explicit rank equalities for block matrices.



    Throughout this article, let Cm×n stand for the set of all m×n matrices over the field of complex numbers; A stands for the conjugate transpose of ACm×n; r(A) stands for the rank of ACm×n; Im stands for the identity matrix of order m and [A,B] stands for a columnwise partitioned matrix consisting of two submatrices A and B. We introduce the concept of generalized inverses of a matrix. For an ACm×n, the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of A is defined to be the unique matrix XCn×m that satisfies the four Penrose equations:

    (1) AXA=A,  (2) XAX=X,  (3) (AX)=AX,  (4) (XA)=XA. (1.1)

    A matrix XCn×m is called an {i,,j}-generalized inverse of ACm×n, denoted by A(i,,j), if it satisfies the ith, ,jth matrix equations in (1.1). Notice that solutions of each of the four equations in (1.1) are not necessarily unique. Hence, the set of all {i,,j}-generalized inverses of the matrix A is usually denoted by the symbol {A(i,,j)}. There are altogether 15 sorts of {i,,j}-generalized inverses of A by the above definition, but the following

    A,  A(1,3,4),  A(1,2,4),  A(1,2,3),  A(1,4),  A(1,3),  A(1,2),  A(1) (1.2)

    are usually called the eight commonly-used types of generalized inverses of A in the literature. Admittedly, the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of a matrix is a natural extension of the standard inverse of an invertible matrix, which has become one of the basic and classic concepts in matrix theory and its applications due to its usefulness in dealing with singular matrices. For more basic results and facts concerning generalized inverses of matrices and their properties, we refer the reader to the three references [1,2,3].

    Let us consider the following two general matrix equalities:

    A1B(i1,,j1)1C1+A2B(i2,,j2)2C2++AkB(ik,,jk)kCk=D, (1.3)
    A1B(i1,,j1)1A2B(i2,,j2)2AkB(ik,,jk)kAk+1=A, (1.4)

    where it is assumed that A1, A2, , Ak+1, B1, B2, , Bk, C1, C2, , Ck and A and D are matrices of appropriate sizes. Clearly, (1.3) and (1.4) are generalizations of various concrete matrix equalities that involve mixed operations of ordinary sums and products of several matrices and their generalized inverses. For the sake of exposition, let us take the following two well-known examples:

    B(i,,j)=B(i1,,j1)1+B(i2,,j2)2++B(ik,,jk)k, (1.5)
    (BkB2B1)(i,,j)=B(i1,,j1)1B(i2,,j2)2B(ik,,jk)k, (1.6)

    which are called the parallel sum of matrices and the reverse-order law for generalized inverses of multiple matrix products, respectively. As demonstrated in Lemma 2.2 below, generalized inverses of a matrix can be written as certain linear and bilinear matrix expressions involving two arbitrary matrices. Hence, the two matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4) can be equivalently represented as two kinds of linear and nonlinear matrix equations involving multiple arbitrary matrices (variable matrices).

    As we know, in algebra theory, or a given algebraic expression or equality that involves variable entries, algebraists can propose many kinds of questions relevant to its properties and performances, but of particular interest regarding the expression or equality is to determine explicit conditions under which the expression is invariant with respect to the variable entries or the equality holds for some/all values of the variable entries included. In view of this consideration, it is natural to ask the questions related to determining necessary and sufficient conditions for the matrix equalities in the context of (1.3) and (1.4) to hold respectively for some/all of the generalized inverses of the matrices in them. In fact, this sort of research problems were proposed and investigated by lots of authors focused generalized inverses of matrices and its various applications [4,5,6,7]. Prompted by this kind of work, the present author and his collaborators considered a selection of linear and nonlinear matrix expressions or matrix equalities that involve one or more arbitrary matrices, established a fundamental theory related to the invariance properties of different types of linear and nonlinear matrix expressions and presented their essential utilizations in the characterizations of many kinds of matrix equalities that involve algebraic operations of generalized inverses of matrices [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Particularly in two recent papers [15,16], the present author considered (1.4) for {1}-generalized inverses of matrices of B1, B2, , Bk with k=2,3, deriving different types of identifying conditions under which the given matrix equalities always hold with respect to all possible {1}-generalized inverses of the given matrices by using a diversity of precise rank equalities associated with certain specified block matrices that are constructed from the given matrices in (1.4). Obviously, characterization problems of (1.3) and (1.4) involve lots of difficult and divisive issues because they are quite inclusive for various possible choices of {i,,j}-generalized inverses of the given matrices, thus, there exist many concrete cases of (1.3) and (1.4) that we need to give further deep explorations.

    As an ongoing study of the above algebraic equality characterization problems on matrices, the main objective of this article is to consider several cases of the matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4) for the mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices with k=2,3, and to give identifying conditions under which these algebraic matrix equalities always hold by using a series of ordinary but skillful calculations of ranks of matrices. The rest of this paper is organized in five sections. In Section 2, the present author introduces a sequence of well-known or existing basic formulas, facts and results related to ranks, ranges and generalized inverses of matrices that we shall utilize in the derivations of our main results regarding (1.3) and (1.4). In Section 3, the author derives necessary and sufficient conditions for the matrix equalities in (1.3) to hold with mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices for k=2,3 by means of the elementary but the powerful block matrix representation method (BMRM) and the matrix rank method (MRM). In Section 4, the author gives identifying conditions for the matrix equalities in (1.4) to always hold with mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices for k=2,3. In Section 5, the author presents a variety of parallel conclusions related to several kinds of algebraic matrix equalities that involve different mixed algebraic operations of given matrices and their weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses. An application is presented in Section 6 for a matrix equality involving generalized inverses of a 2×2 block matrix. Concluding remarks are given in Section 7.

    In this section, the author presents some well-known or existing results and conclusions regarding a two-sided linear matrix equation, the general expressions of generalized inverses of a matrix, as well as some equalities and inequalities associated with ranks of block matrices, which we shall adopt as fundamental and feasible matrix analysis tools in the examinations of the algebraic matrix equality problems described in Section 1.

    Lemma 2.1 ([17]). Let

    AXB=C (2.1)

    be a two-sided linear matrix equation, where ACm×n, BCp×q and CCm×q are given. Then, the following four statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (2.1) is solvable for X.

    (b) R(A)R(C) and R(B)R(C).

    (c) r[A,C]=r(A) and r[BC]=r(B).

    (d) AACBB=C.

    In this case, the general solution of (2.1) can be written in the following parametric expression

    X=ACB+FAU+VEB, (2.2)

    where FA=InAA, EB=IpBB and U,VCn×p are arbitrary matrices. Particularly, (2.1) holds for all matrices XCn×p if and only if

    [A,C]=0  or  [BC]=0. (2.3)

    Lemma 2.2 ([17]). Let ACm×n. Then, the general expressions of A(1) and A(1,2) can be written as

    A(1)=A+FAU+VEA, (2.4)
    A(1,2)=(A+FAU)A(A+VEA), (2.5)

    where EA=ImAA, FA=InAA and U,VCn×m are arbitrary.

    Recall a simple fact in linear algebra that a matrix is null if and only if its rank is zero. As a direct consequence of this fact, we see that two matrices A and B of the same size are equal if and only if the matrix rank equality r(AB)=0 holds. In other words, these obvious two equivalent statements connect the matrix equality A=B alternatively to the matrix rank equality r(AB)=0. In view of this assertion, we can see that if certain nontrivial analytical formulas for calculating the rank of AB are obtained, then we can directly employ them to reveal essential connections between the two matrices. Of course, the usefulness of this proposed methodology is based on the fact that we can precisely calculate ranks of matrix expressions by using elementary operations of matrices. As a matter of fact, algebraists realized that numerous matrix rank formulas can be established in reasonable ways, while these matrix rank formulas have been recognized as powerful tools to construct, characterize and understand hidden structures and properties of various algebraic matrix expressions and matrix equalities.

    Lemma 2.3 ([18]). Let ACm×n,BCm×k and CCl×n. Then,

    r[A,B]r(A), (2.6)
    r[ABC0]r(B)+r(C). (2.7)

    Lemma 2.4 ([19,20]). Let ACm×n, BCm×k, CCl×n and DCl×k be given. Then,

    maxA(1)r(DCA(1)B)=min{r[C,D],  r[BD],  r[ABCD]r(A)}, (2.8)
    maxA(1,2)r(DCA(1,2)B)=min{r(A)+r(D),r[C,D],r[BD], r[ABCD]r(A)}. (2.9)

    Therefore,

    CA(1)B=D holds for all A^{(1)}[C,D]=0, or [BD]=0, or r[ABCD]=r(A); (2.10)
    CA(1,2)B=D holds for all A^{(1,2)} A=0 and D=0, or [C,D]=0, or [BD]=0, or r[ABCD]=r(A). (2.11)

    The cases of the matrix equalities in (1.3) for k=2 and {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 are given by

    A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2=D, (3.1)
    A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2=D, (3.2)
    A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1)2C2=D, (3.3)
    A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2=D, (3.4)

    where A1Cm×p1, B1Cq1×p1, C1Cq1×n, A2Cm×p2, B2Cq2×p2, C2Cq2×n and DCm×n. In this section, we first give conditions under which the four matrix equalities in (3.1)–(3.4) always hold for all {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2.

    Theorem 3.1. Let A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2 and D be as given in (3.1). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (3.1) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2.

    (b) A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1 and B(1)2 and A1B1C1+A2B2C2=D holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 9 conditions holds:

    (i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (iii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (iv) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (v) A1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (vi) C1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (vii) A2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (viii) C2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (ix) r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Proof. By (2.10), we first obtain that (2.10) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)1 if and only if

    [A1,DA2B(1)2C2]=0 or [C1DA2B(1)2C2]=0 or r[B1C1A1DA2B(1)2C2]=r(B1). (3.5)

    Subsequently, we see from (2.10) that the first equality in (3.5) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)2 if and only if

    A1=0 and any one of [A2,D]=0,  [C2D]=0,  r[B2A2C2D]=r(B2), (3.6)

    as required for (i), (ii) and (v) in (c). Meanwhile by (2.10), the second equality in (3.5) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)2 if and only if

    C1=0 and any one of the three conditions [A2,D]=0,  [C2D]=0,  r[B2A2C2D]=r(B2), (3.7)

    as required for (iii), (iv) and (vi) in (c). Further, by (2.8),

    maxB(1)2r[B1C1A1DA2B(1)2C2]=maxB(1)2r([B1C1A1D][0A2]B(1)2[0,C2])=min{r[B1C10A10A2], r[B1C1A100C2], r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]r(B2)}. (3.8)

    Hence, the third equality in (3.5) holds for all generalized inverses B(1)2 if and only if

    r[B1C10A10A2]=r(B1)  or  r[B1C1A100C2]=r(B1)  or  r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2). (3.9)

    Also by (2.6) and (2.7), we see that

    r[B1C10A10A2]r[B1,C1]+r(A2)r(B1)  and  r[B1C1A100C2]r[B1A1]+r(C2)r(B1).

    Combining the rank inequalities with the first two equalities in (3.9) yields (vii) and (viii) in (c). The third rank inequality in (3.9) is just (ix) in (c).

    It can be seen from the nine conditions in Theorem 3.1(c) that if the matrices Ai0 and Ci0 in (3.1) for i=1,2, then (3.1) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2 if and only if Condition (ix) in Theorem 3.1(c) holds. This special fact brings convenience of using the assertions in Theorem 3.1.

    By a similar approach, we can show that the following two theorems hold, and we omit the details of their proofs.

    Theorem 3.2. Let A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2 and D be as given in (3.3). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (3.2) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1 and B(1)2 and A1B1C1+A2B2C2=D holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 12 conditions holds:

    (i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (iii) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (iv) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (v) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (vi) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (vii) A1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (viii) B1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (ix) C1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (x) A2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xi) C2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xii) r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    In particular, assume that the matrices Ai0 and Ci0 in (3.4) for i=1,2. Then (3.3) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1)2 if and only if Condition (xii) in (c) holds.

    Theorem 3.3. Let A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2 and D be as given in (3.4). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (3.4) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2 and A1B1C1+A2B2C2=D holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 16 conditions holds:

    (i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (ii) A1=0, B2=0 and D=0.

    (iii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (vi) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (v) B1=0, B2=0 and D=0.

    (vi) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (vii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (viii) C1=0, B2=0 and D=0.

    (ix) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (x) A1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (xi) B1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (xii) C1=0 and r[B2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (xiii) A2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xiv) B2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xv) C2=0 and r[B1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xvi) r[B10C10B2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    In particular, assume that the matrices Ai0 and Ci0 in (3.4) for i=1,2. Then (3.4) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2 if and only if Condition (xvi) in (c) holds.

    The case of (1.3) for k=3 is given by

    A1B(i1,,j1)1C1+A2B(i2,,j2)2C2+A3B(i3,,j3)3C3=D, (3.10)

    where A1Cm×p1, B1Cq1×p1, C1Cq1×n, A2Cm×p2, B2Cq2×p2, C2Cq2×n, A3Cm×p3, B3Cq3×p3, C3Cq3×n and DCm×n. Clearly, there are eight possible expressions in (3.10) for {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1, B2 and B3. In the remaining part of this section, we only give two groups of conditions under which (3.10) always holds for all {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1, B2 and B3. It is easy to see that, if any one Ai and Ci in (3.10) is zero for i=1,2,3, (3.10) reduces to two-term cases on the left-hand side. So, we assume that Ai0 and Ci0 in (3.10) for i=1,2,3 without loss of generality.

    Theorem 3.4. Let Ai, Bi, Ci and D be as given in (3.10) and assume that Ai0 and Ci0 for i=1,2,3. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2+A3B(1)3C3=D holds for all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3.

    (b) A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2+A3B(1)3C3 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3 and A1B1C1+A2B2C2+A3B3C3=D holds.

    (c) r[B100C10B20C200B3C3A1A2A3D]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    Proof. Rewriting A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2+A3B(1)3C3=D as A1B(1)1C1+A2B(1)2C2=DA3B(1)3C3 and applying Theorem 3.1(c), we obtain that it holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2 if and only if r[B10C10B2C2A1A2DA3B(1)3C3]=r(B1)+r(B2). Consequently, applying (2.8) and (2.10) to the matrix equality yields (c).

    By a similar approach, we can show the following result, so we omit the details of its proof.

    Theorem 3.5. Let Ai, Bi, Ci and D be as given in (3.10) and assume that Ai0, Bi0 and Ci0 for i=1,2,3. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2+A3B(1,2)3C3=D holds for all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3.

    (b) A1B(1,2)1C1+A2B(1,2)2C2+A3B(1,2)3C3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3 and A1B1C1+A2B2C2+A3B3C3=D holds.

    (c) r[B100C10B20C200B3C3A1A2A3D]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    By induction, we are able to derive the following result.

    Theorem 3.6. Assume that Ai0, Bi0 and Ci0 in (1.3) are for i=1,2,,k. Then, (1.3) holds for all mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1,B2,,Bk if and only if

    r[B1000C10B200C200BkCkA1A2AkD]=r(B1)+r(B2)++r(Bk).

    The cases of the matrix equalities in (1.4) for k=2 and {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 are given by

    A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3=A, (4.1)
    A1B(1)1A2B(1,2)2A3=A, (4.2)
    A1B(1,2)1A2B(1)2A3=A, (4.3)
    A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3=A, (4.4)

    where A1Cm1×m2, B1Cm3×m2, A2Cm3×m4, B2Cm5×m4, A3Cm5×m6 and ACm1×m6. Particularly, the case of (4.1) for {1}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 was studied in [11,15], and the following results were obtained.

    Theorem 4.1 ([11,15]). Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 and A be as given in (4.1). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (4.1) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1)2.

    (b) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3 is invariant with respect to B(1)1 and B(1)2 and A1B1A2B2A3=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 6 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A3=0.

    (iv) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (v) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (vi) r[A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    In what follows, we give the results on the other three cases for {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of B1 and B2 in (4.1).

    Theorem 4.2. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 and A be as given in (4.2). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (4.2) holds for all B(1)1 and B(1,2)2.

    (b) A1B(1)1A2B(1,2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1 and B(1,2)2 and A1B1A2B2A3=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 7 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and B2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and A3=0.

    (v) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (vii) r[A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Proof. The equivalence of (a) and (b) follows from the definition of the Moore–Penrose inverse of a matrix and its uniqueness.

    By Lemma 4.1(c), we first see that the product A1B(1)1A2B(1,2)2A3=A holds for all generalized inverses B(1)1 if and only if any one of the following three conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2B(1,2)2A3=0.

    (iii) r[AA1A2B(1,2)2A3B1]=r(B1).

    Consequently, we derive the conditions under which (ii) and (iii) hold, respectively. By (2.11), the equality A2B(1,2)2A3=0 in (ii) of the above three conditions holds for all generalized inverses B(1,2)2 if and only if

    A2=0  or  B2=0  or  A3=0  or  r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2) (4.5)

    holds. So, the above condition (ii) is equivalent to (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) in (c). By (2.9),

    maxB(1,2)2r[AA1A2B(1,2)2A3B1]=maxB(1,2)2r([AA10B1]+[0A2]B(1,2)2[A3,0])=min{r[AA10B1]+r(B2),  r[AA100B1A2],  r[AA10B1A30],  r[A0A10A2B1A3B20]r(B2)}.

    Hence, the rank equality in (iii) of the above three conditions holds for all generalized inverses B(1,2)2 if and only if

    r[AA10B1]+r(B2)=r(B1)  or  r[AA100B1A2]=r(B1)  or  r[AA10B1A30]=r(B1) (4.6)
    or  r[A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r(B1)+r(B2). (4.7)

    By (2.7),

    r[AA10B1]+r(B2)r(A)+r(B1)+r(B2)r(B1)

    holds. Combining it with the first equality in (4.6) leads to r(A)=r(B2)=0; thus, the first equality in (4.6) is equivalent to (iii) in (c). By (2.6) and (2.7),

    r[AA100B1A2]r(A)+r[B1,A2]r(B1)

    holds. Combining it with the second equality in (4.6) leads to A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1); thus, the second equality in (4.6) is equivalent to (v) in (c). By (2.7),

    r[AA10B1A30]r[AA3]+r(B1)r(B1)

    holds. Combining it with the third equality in (4.6) leads to A=0 and A3=0; thus the third equality in (4.6) is involved in (iv) in (c). The rank equality in (4.7) is equivalent to (vii) in (c).

    We also declare that the following theorems can be shown by a similar approach, so the details of the proofs are omitted.

    Theorem 4.3. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3 and A be as given in (4.4). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (4.4) holds for all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1 and B(1,2)2 and A1B1A2B2A3=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 8 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and B1=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and B2=0.

    (v) A=0 and A3=0.

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (vii) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (viii) r[A0A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    The case of (1.4) for k=3 is given by

    A1B(i1,,j1)1A2B(i2,,j2)2A3B(i3,,j3)3A4=A, (4.8)

    where A1Cm1×m2, B1Cm3×m2, A2Cm3×m4, B2Cm5×m4, A3Cm5×m6, B3Cm7×m6, A4Cm7×m8 and ACm1×m8. Particularly, the case of (4.8) for {1}-generalized inverses of B1, B2 and B3 was studied in [16], and the following results were obtained.

    Theorem 4.4 ([16]). Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1)3A4=A holds for all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3.

    (b) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1)3 and A1B1A2B2A3B3A4=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 10 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A3=0.

    (iv) A=0 and A4=0.

    (v) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (vii) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).

    (viii) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    (ix) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).

    (x) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    For the other seven matrix equalities in (4.8) with mixed combinations of {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices, we have the following results.

    Theorem 4.5. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1,2)3A4=A holds for all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1,2)3.

    (b) A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1,2)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1)1, B(1)2 and B(1,2)3 and A1B1A2B2A3B3A4=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 11 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A3=0.

    (iii) A=0 and B3=0.

    (v) A=0 and A4=0.

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (vii) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (viii) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).

    (ix) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    (x) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).

    (xi) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    Proof. The equivalence of (a) and (b) follows from the definition of the Moore–Penrose inverse of a matrix and its uniqueness.

    By Lemma 4.1(c), we first see that the matrix equality A1B(1)1A2B(1)2A3B(1,2)3A4=A holds for all generalized inverses B(1)1 and B(1)2 if and only if any one of the following 6 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A3B(1,2)3A4=0.

    (iv) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (v) A=0 and r[0A2A3B(1,2)3A4B2]=r(B2).

    (vi) r[A0A10A2B1A3B(1,2)3A4B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    We next derive the conditions under which (iii), (v) and (vi) hold, respectively. By (2.10), the equality A3B(1,2)3A4=0 in (iii) of the above 6 conditions holds for all generalized inverses B(1,2)3 if and only if

    A3=0  or  B3=0  or  A4=0  or  r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3) (4.9)

    holds. By (2.8),

    maxB(1,2)3r[0A2A3B(1,2)3A4B2]=maxB(1,2)3r([0A20B2]+[0A3]B(1,2)3[A4,0])=min{r[A2B2]+r(B3),  r[0A2A3B2],  r[0A20B2A40],  r[00A20A3B2A4B30]r(B3)}=min{r[A2B2]+r(B3),  r[0A2A3B2],  r[A2B2]+r(A4),  r[00A20A3B2A4B30]r(B3)}.

    So, the rank equality r[0A2A3B(1,2)3A4B2]=r(B2) in (v) of the above 6 conditions holds for all B(1,2)3 if and only if

    r[A2B2]+r(B3)=r(B2)  or  r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2)  or  r[A2B2]+r(A4)=r(B2) (4.10)

    or

    r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r(B2)+r(B3), (4.11)

    where the first and third rank equalities in (4.10) mean that B3=0 and A4=0 by noting that r[A2B2]r(B2). By (2.9),

    maxB(1,2)3r[A0A10A2B1A3B(1,2)3A4B20]=maxB(1,2)3r([A0A10A2B10B20]+[00A3]B(1,2)3[A4,0,0])=min{r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3), r[A00A100A2B10A3B20], r[A0A10A2B10B20A400], r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]r(B3)}=min{r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3), r[A00A100A2B10A3B20], r[A0A10A2B10B20A400], r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]r(B3)}.

    Hence, the rank equality in (vi) of the above 6 conditions holds for all B(1,2)3 if and only if

    r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3)=r(B1)+r(B2)  or  r[A00A100A2B10A3B20]=r(B1)+r(B2) (4.12)
    or r[A0A10A2B10B20A400]=r(B1)+r(B2)  or  r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3). (4.13)

    Note from (2.6) and (2.7) that the following four groups of matrix rank inequalities

    r[A0A10A2B10B20]+r(B3)r[A0A10A2B10B20]r(A)+r[A2B1B20]r(B1)+r(B2), (4.14)
    r[A00A100A2B10A3B20]r(A)+r[0A2B1A3B20]r[A2B1B20]r(B1)+r(B2), (4.15)
    r[A0A10A2B10B20A400]r[A0A10A2B10B20]r(A)+r[A2B1B20]r(B1)+r(B2), (4.16)
    r[A0A10A2B10B20A400]r[0A2B10B20A400]=r(A4)+r[A2B1B20]r(B1)+r(B2) (4.17)

    hold. Combining (4.14) with the first equality in (4.12) leads to

    A=0,  B3=0  and  r[00A10A2B10B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2). (4.18)

    This condition, however, is included in (4.9). Combining (4.15) with the second equality in (4.12) leads to

    A=0  and  r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r(B1)+r(B2). (4.19)

    Combining (4.16) and (4.17) with the first equality in (4.13) leads to

    A=0 and A4=0. (4.20)

    Combining the conditions in (i), (ii) and (iv) of the proof with (4.12)–(4.20) leads to the 11 statements in (c).

    The following 6 theorems can be established by a similar approach; therefore, the details of the proofs are omitted.

    Theorem 4.6. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1)3A4=A holds for all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1)3.

    (b) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1)3 and A1B1A2B2A3B3A4=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 12 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and B1=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and B2=0.

    (v) A=0 and A3=0.

    (vi) A=0 and A4=0.

    (vii) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (viii) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (ix) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).

    (x) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    (xi) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).

    (xii) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    Theorem 4.7. Let A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4 and A be as given in (4.8). Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1,2)3A4=A holds for all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3.

    (b)A1B(1,2)1A2B(1,2)2A3B(1,2)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2)1, B(1,2)2 and B(1,2)3 and A1B1A2B2A3B3A4=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 13 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and B1=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and B2=0.

    (v) A=0 and A3=0.

    (vi) A=0 and B3=0.

    (vii) A=0 and A4=0.

    (viii) A=0 and r[0A1A2B1]=r(B1).

    (ix) A=0 and r[0A2A3B2]=r(B2).

    (x) A=0 and r[0A3A4B3]=r(B3).

    (xi) A=0 and r[00A10A2B1A3B20]=r[A2B1B20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    (xii) A=0 and r[00A20A3B2A4B30]=r[A3B2B30]=r(B2)+r(B3).

    (xiii) r[A00A100A2B10A3B20A4B300]=r[0A2B1A3B20B300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    In addition to the classical definition in (1.1), some other weighted generalized inverses of a matrix can be defined from common solutions of given matrix equations derived from theory and applied points of view, alternatively there are many approaches and discussions concerning different kinds of weighted generalized inverses of matrices in the literature. Here, we mention such an example of weighted generalized inverses: given three matrices ACm×n, PCp×m and QCn×q, A is said to be weighted Moore–Penrose invertible with respect to the two matrices (P,Q) if and only if there exists a matrix XCq×p that satisfies the following four matrix equations

    (1) AQXPA=A,  (2) XPAQX=X,  (3) (PAQX)=PAQX,  (4) (XPAQ)=XPAQ. (5.1)

    In this case, the matrix X is denoted by X=A(,P,Q). In addition, a matrix X is said to be a {i,,j,P,Q}-generalized inverse of A, denoted by A(i,,j,P,Q), if it satisfies the ith, ,jth matrix equations in (5.1), while the set of all {i,,j,P,Q}-generalized inverses of the matrix A is, as usual, denoted by {A(i,,j,P,Q)}.

    Concerning the existence of X satisfying (5.1) and the corresponding expressions of X, we have the following results.

    Lemma 5.1. Let ACm×n, PCp×m and QCn×q. Then, A is weighted Moore–Penrose invertible with respect to the two matrices (P,Q) if and only if the two range equalities R((PA))=R(A) and R(AQ)=R(A) hold, or equivalently, the matrix rank equality r(PAQ)=r(A) holds. In such a case, the matrix equality

    A(i,,j,P,Q)=(PAQ)(i,,j) (5.2)

    always holds. In particular, the general expressions of A(1,P,Q) and A(1,2,P,Q) are given by

    A(1,P,Q)=(PAQ)(1)=(PAQ)+(Iq(AQ)AQ)G+H(IpPA(PA)), (5.3)
    A(1,2,P,Q)=(PAQ)(1,2)=((PAQ)+(Iq(AQ)AQ)G)PAQ((PAQ)+H(IpPA(PA))), (5.4)

    and the following matrix equalities

    AQA(1,P,Q)=AQA(1,2,P,Q)=A(PA)+AQH(IpPA(PA)), (5.5)
    A(1,P,Q)PA=A(1,2,P,Q)PA=(AQ)A+(Iq(AQ)AQ)GPA, (5.6)
    PAQA(1,P,Q)=PAQA(1,2,P,Q)=PA(PA)+PAQH(IpPA(PA)), (5.7)
    A(1,P,Q)PAQ=A(1,2,P,Q)PAQ=(AQ)AQ+(Iq(AQ)AQ)GPAQ (5.8)

    hold, where G,HCq×p are two arbitrary matrices.

    Proof. By Lemma 2.1, the first equation in (5.1) is solvable for the matrix X if and only if R(AQ)R(A) and R((PA))R(A) hold, both of which are equivalent to the matrix range equalities R((PA))=R(A) and R(AQ)=R(A), or equivalently, the matrix rank equality r(PAQ)=r(A). In this case, the first equation in (5.1) is equivalent to PAQXPAQ=PAQ. In this case, we obtain (5.3) and (5.4) from Lemma 2.2.

    Analogous to (4.8), it is possible to formulate four additive matrix equalities that involve weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses as follows:

    A1B(1,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2=D, (5.9)
    A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2=D, (5.10)
    A1B(1,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2C2=D, (5.11)
    A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2C2=D, (5.12)

    where A1Cm×q1, P1Cp1×s1, B1Cs1×t1, Q1Ct1×q1, C1Cp1×n, A2Cm×q2, P2Cp2×s2, B2Cs2×t2, Q2Ct2×q2, C2Cp2×n and DCm×n are given.

    Theorem 5.2. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (5.9) holds for all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2.

    (b) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)C1+A2(P2B2Q2)C2=D holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 9 conditions holds:

    (i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (iii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (iv) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (v) A1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (vi) C1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (vii) A2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (viii) C2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (ix) r[P1B1Q10C10P2B2Q2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Proof. By (5.3), the matrix equality in (5.9) is equivalent to

    A1(P1B1Q1)(1)C1+A2(P2B2Q2)(1)C2=D.

    In this case, applying Theorem 3.1 to the matrix equality yields the results in (a), (b) and (c).

    The following theorems can be shown by a similar approach.

    Theorem 5.3. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (5.10) holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P1,Q1)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,P2,Q2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)C1+A2(P2B2Q2)C2=D holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 12 conditions holds:

    (i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (ii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (iii) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (iv) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (v) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (vi) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (vii) A1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (viii) B1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (ix) C1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (x) A2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xi) C2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xii) r[P1B1Q10C10P2B2Q2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Theorem 5.4. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (5.12) holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P1,Q1)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1C1+A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2C2 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)C1+A2(P2B2Q2)C2=D holds.

    (b) Any one of the following 16 conditions holds:

    (i) A1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (ii) A1=0, B2=0 and D=0.

    (iii) A1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (vi) B1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (v) B1=0, B2=0 and D=0.

    (vi) B1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (vii) C1=0, A2=0 and D=0.

    (viii) C1=0, B2=0 and D=0.

    (ix) C1=0, C2=0 and D=0.

    (x) A1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (xi) B1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (xii) C1=0 and r[P2B2Q2C2A2D]=r(B2).

    (xiii) A2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xiv) B2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xv) C2=0 and r[P1B1Q1C1A1D]=r(B1).

    (xvi) r[P1B1Q10C10P2B2Q2C2A1A2D]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Analogous to (1.4), it is possible to formulate some matrix equalities that involve alternative products of matrices and their weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses. In what follows, we present a sequence of extensions of the results in the preceding sections to matrix equalities that involve mixed products of two or three weighted {1}- and {1,2}-inverses. In particular, we are able to construct four matrix equalities that involves weighted {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses as follows:

    A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A, (5.13)
    A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A, (5.14)
    A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3=A, (5.15)
    A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3=A, (5.16)

    where A1Cm1×m2, P1Cm3×q1, B1Cq1×p1, Q1Cp1×m2, A2Cm3×m4, P2Cm5×q2, B2Cq2×p2, Q2Cp2×m4, A3Cm5×m6 and ACm1×m6.

    Theorem 5.5. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (5.13) holds for all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2.

    (b) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)A2(P2B2Q2)A3=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 6 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A3=0.

    (iv) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).

    (v) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).

    (vi) r[A0A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Proof. Under the given assumptions, we obtain from (5.3) that A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A is equivalent to

    A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3=A1(P1B1Q1)(1)A2(P2B2Q2)(1)A3=A.

    In this case, applying Theorem 4.1 to the matrix equality yields the results in (a), (b) and (c).

    By a similar approach, we obtain the following three groups of results from Theorems 4.2 and 4.3.

    Theorem 5.6. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (5.14) holds for all B(1,2,P2,Q2)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2,P2,Q2)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P2,Q2)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)A2(P2B2Q2)A3=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 7 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and B1=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and A3=0.

    (v) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).

    (vii) r[A0A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Theorem 5.7. Assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,P2,Q2)2 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) Equation (5.16) holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P2,Q2)2.

    (b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1 and B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and A1(P1B1Q1)A2(P2B2Q2)A3=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 8 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and B1=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and B2=0.

    (v) A=0 and A3=0.

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).

    (vii) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).

    (viii) r[A0A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    Finally, we present extensions of Theorems 4.4 and 4.7 to matrix equalities that involve mixed products of three weighted {1}- and {1,2}-inverses. Let

    A1Cm1×m2, P1Cm3×q1, B1Cq1×p1, Q1Cp1×m2, A2Cm3×m4, (5.17)
    P2Cm5×q2, B2Cq2×p2, Q2Cp2×m4, A3Cm5×m6, P3Cm7×q3, (5.18)
    B3Cq3×p3, Q3Cp3×m6, A4Cm7×m8. (5.19)

    Then, the matrix product A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,P3,Q3)3A4 is defined accordingly, and we have the following results.

    Theorem 5.8. Given the matrices in (5.17)–(5.19) and ACm1×m8, and assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,P3,Q3)3A4=A holds for all B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3.

    (b) A1B(1,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,P3,Q3)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3 and A1(P1B1Q1)A2(P2B2Q2)A3(P3B3Q3)A4=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 10 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A3=0.

    (iv) A=0 and A4=0.

    (v) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).

    (vi) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).

    (vii) A=0 and r[0A3A4P3B3Q3]=r(B3).

    (viii) A=0 and r[00A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    (ix) A=0 and r[00A20A3P2B2Q2A4P3B3Q30]=r[A3P2B2Q2P3B3Q30]=r(B2)+r(B3).

    (x) r[A00A100A2P1B1Q10A3P2B2Q20A4P3B3Q300]=r[0A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20P3B3Q300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    Theorem 5.9. Given the assumptions in (5.17)–(5.19) and ACm1×m8, assume that B(1,P1,Q1)1, B(1,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,P3,Q3)3 exist. Then, the following three statements are equivalent:

    (a) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,2,P3,Q3)3A4=A holds for all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1, B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,2,P3,Q3)3.

    (b) A1B(1,2,P1,Q1)1A2B(1,2,P2,Q2)2A3B(1,2,P3,Q3)3A4 is invariant with respect to all B(1,2,P1,Q1)1, B(1,2,P2,Q2)2 and B(1,2,P3,Q3)3 and A1(P1B1Q1)A2(P2B2Q2)A3(P3B3Q3)A4=A holds.

    (c) Any one of the following 13 conditions holds:

    (i) A=0 and A1=0.

    (ii) A=0 and B1=0.

    (iii) A=0 and A2=0.

    (iv) A=0 and B2=0.

    (v) A=0 and A3=0.

    (vi) A=0 and B3=0.

    (vii) A=0 and A4=0.

    (viii) A=0 and r[0A1A2P1B1Q1]=r(B1).

    (ix) A=0 and r[0A2A3P2B2Q2]=r(B2).

    (x) A=0 and r[0A3A4P3B3Q3]=r(B3).

    (xi) A=0 and r[00A10A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20]=r[A2P1B1Q1P2B2Q20]=r(B1)+r(B2).

    (xii) A=0 and r[00A20A3P2B2Q2A4P3B3Q30]=r[A3P2B2Q2P3B3Q30]=r(B2)+r(B3).

    (xiii) r[A00A100A2P1B1Q10A3P2B2Q20A4P3B3Q300]=r[0A2P1B1Q1A3P2B2Q20P3B3Q300]=r(B1)+r(B2)+r(B3).

    There exist many concrete matrix equalities, as described in (1.5) and (1.6), that can be represented in the forms of (1.3) and (1.4). As an application, we consider in this section the following partitioned matrix:

    M=[ABCD],

    where ACm1×n1, BCm1×n2, CCm2×n1 and DCm2×n2. Given such a partitioned matrix, we are able to construct a special matrix equality

    [ABCD](i,,j)=[A(i1,,j1)C(i2,,j2)B(i3,,j3)D(i4,,j4)] (6.1)

    for the generalized inverses. Because generalized inverses of matrices are not necessarily unique, (6.1) can be divided into the following four cases:

    {[ABCD](i,,j)}{[A(i1,,j1)C(i2,,j2)B(i3,,j3)D(i4,,j4)]},{[ABCD](i,,j)}{[A(i1,,j1)C(i2,,j2)B(i3,,j3)D(i4,,j4)]}, (6.2)
    {[ABCD](i,,j)}{[A(i1,,j1)C(i2,,j2)B(i3,,j3)D(i4,,j4)]},{[ABCD](i,,j)}={[A(i1,,j1)C(i2,,j2)B(i3,,j3)D(i4,,j4)]}. (6.3)

    It is a tedious work to characterize these four matrix set relations for different choices of the generalized inverses. In what follows, we only consider a special case of the first matrix set inclusion in (6.3). By definition, the first matrix set inclusion in (6.3) holds for {1}-inverses of the matrices if and only if

    [ABCD][A(1)C(1)B(1)D(1)][ABCD]=[ABCD] (6.4)

    holds for all A(1), B(1), C(1) and D(1), which in turn can be represented in the form

    P1A(1)Q1+P2B(1)Q1+P1C(1)Q2+P2D(1)Q2=M, (6.5)

    where P1=[AC], P2=[BD], Q1=[A,B] and Q2=[C,D]. In this case, we are able to find from Theorem 3.6 the following result.

    Theorem 6.1. Let Pi and Qi be as given in (6.5) and assume that Pi0 and Qi0 for i=1,2. Then, (6.4) holds for all A(1), B(1), C(1) and D(1) if and only if

    r[A000Q10B00Q100C0Q2000DQ2P1P2P1P2M]=r(A)+r(B)+r(C)+r(D),

    or equivalently,

    r[ABA0C0CDAB0B0DCD]=r(A)+r(B)+r(C)+r(D)r(M).

    We investigated the two sorts of general matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4) that involve ordinary sum and product operations of matrices and their generalized inverses, and we obtained a variety of necessary and sufficient conditions for them to hold. It can be seen that the corresponding results and facts are fairly easy to understand and utilize within the common discipline of matrix theory and generalized inverses of matrices since they were explicitly derived through various common algebraic calculations of matrices and their generalized inverses, as well as the skillful employments of the elementary but powerful BMRM and MRM.

    In addition to the work related to {1}- and {1,2}-generalized inverses of matrices, it would be of interest to consider other {i,,j}-generalized inverses of the matrices in the two matrix equalities in (1.3) and (1.4); yet, it is not difficult to see that we can easily extend them by induction to general matrix equalities through certain special block matrices that are constructed from the given matrices in the equalities. Finally, we conclude that this study will reveal numerous novel and intrinsic properties and performances of matrix expressions and matrix equalities that are encountered in the theory of generalized inverses. We also believe that these results and facts will provide enough supports to approach various concrete matrix equality problems from theoretical and applied points of view.

    The author declares that he has not used artificial intelligence tools in the creation of this article.

    The author would like to express his sincere thanks to the handling editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

    The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] A. Ben-Israel, T. N. E. Greville, Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
    [2] D. S. Bernstein, Scalar, Vector, and Matrix Mathematics: Theory, Facts, and Formulas-Revised and Expanded Edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400888252
    [3] S. L. Campbell, C. D. Meyer, Generalized Inverses of Linear Transformations, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2009.
    [4] D. Carlson, Generalized inverse invariance, partial orders, and rank-minimization problems for matrices, in Current Trends in Matrix Theory, North-Holland, New York, (1987), 81–87.
    [5] R. E. Hartwig, 1–2 inverses and the invariance of BA+C, Linear Algebra Appl., 11 (1975), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3795(75)90026-9 doi: 10.1016/0024-3795(75)90026-9
    [6] X. Liu, Z. Miao, Y. Yu, Note on the invariance properties of operator products involving generalized inverses, Abstr. Appl. Anal., 2014 (2014), 213458. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/213458 doi: 10.1155/2014/213458
    [7] Z. Xiong, Y. Qin, Invariance properties of an operator product involving generalized inverses, Electron. J. Linear Algebra, 22 (2011), 694–703. https://doi.org/10.13001/1081-3810.1467 doi: 10.13001/1081-3810.1467
    [8] J. Groß, Y. Tian, Invariance properties of a triple matrix product involving generalized inverses, Linear Algebra Appl., 417 (2006), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2006.03.026 doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2006.03.026
    [9] B. Jiang, Y. Tian, Necessary and sufficient conditions for nonlinear matrix identities to always hold, Aequat. Math., 93 (2019), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00010-018-0610-3 doi: 10.1007/s00010-018-0610-3
    [10] B. Jiang, Y. Tian, Linear and multilinear functional identities in a prime ring with applications, J. Algebra Appl., 20 (2021), 2150212. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498821502121 doi: 10.1142/S0219498821502121
    [11] B. Jiang, Y. Tian, Invariance property of a five matrix product involving two generalized inverses, Anal. Sti. Univ. Ovid. Const. Ser. Mat., 29 (2021), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.2478/auom-2021-0006 doi: 10.2478/auom-2021-0006
    [12] Y. Tian, B. Jiang, Closed-form formulas for calculating the max-min ranks of a triple matrix product composed by generalized inverses, Comput. Appl. Math., 37 (2018), 5876–5919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-018-0668-5 doi: 10.1007/s40314-018-0668-5
    [13] Y. Tian, Miscellaneous reverse order laws for generalized inverses of matrix products with applications, Adv. Oper. Theory, 5 (2020), 1889–1942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43036-020-00072-8 doi: 10.1007/s43036-020-00072-8
    [14] Y. Tian, A family of 512 reverse order laws for generalized inverses of a matrix product: a review, Heliyon, 6 (2020), e04924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04924 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04924
    [15] Y. Tian, Characterizations of matrix equalities for generalized inverses of matrix products, Axioms, 11 (2022), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11060291 doi: 10.3390/axioms11060291
    [16] Y. Tian, On a family of matrix equalities that involve multiple products of generalized inverses, Aequat. Math., 97 (2023), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00010-023-00940-7 doi: 10.1007/s00010-023-00940-7
    [17] R. Penrose, A generalized inverse for matrices, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 51 (1955), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100030401 doi: 10.1017/S0305004100030401
    [18] G. Marsaglia, G. P. H. Styan, Equalities and inequalities for ranks of matrices, Linear Multilinear Algebra, 2 (1974), 269–292.
    [19] Y. Tian, Upper and lower bounds for ranks of matrix expressions using generalized inverses, Linear Algebra Appl., 355 (2002), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3795(02)00345-2 doi: 10.1016/S0024-3795(02)00345-2
    [20] Y. Tian, More on maximal and minimal ranks of Schur complements with applications, Appl. Math. Comput., 152 (2004), 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00585-X doi: 10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00585-X
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Baifeng Qiu, Zhiping Xiong, The reverse order law for the weighted least square g-inverse of multiple matrix products, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 29171, 10.3934/math.20231494
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1045) PDF downloads(34) Cited by(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog