Let's look at an example.
If we wanted to solve this system of equations
Then it's equivalent to solving this matrix equation
We can then further condense that into the form
Where,
------------------------------------------
To solve the matrix equation Aw = B, we could compute the inverse matrix
and left-multiply both sides by this to isolate w.
So we'd go from
to
. The order of multiplication is important.
For any 2x2 matrix of the form
its inverse is
Notice the expression ad-bc in the denominator of that fractional term outside. This
expression represents the determinant of matrix P. Some books may use the notation "det" to mean "determinant"
or you may see it written as
Those aren't absolute value bars, even if they may look like it.
Based on that, we can see that the determinant must be nonzero in order to compute the inverse of the matrix. Consequently, the determinant must be nonzero in order for Aw = B to have one solution.
If the determinant is 0, then we have two possibilities:
- There are infinitely many solutions (aka the system is dependent)
- There are no solutions (the system is inconsistent)
So a zero determinant would have to be investigated further as to which outcome would occur.
------------------------------------------
Let's return to the example and compute the inverse (if possible).
In this case, the inverse does exist.
This further leads to
This shows that the solution is (x,y) = (3,4).
As the other person pointed out, you could use Cramer's Rule to solve this system. Cramer's Rule will involve using determinants and you'll be dividing over determinants. So this is another reason why we cannot have a zero determinant.