The (i,j)-minor of a matrix: multilinear map?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Map Matrix
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the (i,j)-minor of a matrix, defined as M_{ij}(A)=detA(i|j), and whether it qualifies as a multilinear map. It is noted that the determinant function is n-linear, leading to the question of M_{ij}'s multilinearity. A key point raised is that multiplying the ith component of M_{ij} by a constant does not yield the expected result, as M_{ij} appears independent of the ith vector. This raises concerns about the definition of M_{ij} and whether its domain consists of n or n-1 copies of R^n. The conclusion suggests that the understanding of M_{ij} hinges on this domain specification.
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Recall that for an nxn matrix A, the (i,i)-minor of A is defined as M_{ij}(A)=detA(i|j), where A(j|i) stands for the matrix (n-1)x(n-1) obtained from A by removing the ith line and jth column.

Also note that we can view det as a map from R^n x ... x R^n to R taking n vectors from R^n, staking them as the lines of a nxn matrix and taking the determinant of that. And it is a well known fact from linear algebra that this map is n-linear.

In the same way, we can view M_{ij} as a function from R^n x ... x R^n to R, and it is in this context that I ask if the (i,j)-minor of a matrix is a multilinear map.

My book says that it is, but I find it odd that if one multiplies the ith component a_i of M_{ij} by a constant c (for instance 0), one gets not cM_{ij}(a_1,...,a_i,..,a_n) as one should, but rather M_{ij}(a_1,...,a_i,..,a_n) because the ith line is not taken into acount altogether! In other words, M_{ij}(a_1,...,a_i,..,a_n) is independant of a_i !

Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess it depends on how exactly you're defining the function M_ij, i.e. does its domain consist of n or n-1 copies of R^n (where in the latter case we're discarding the 'ith component')?
 
Yes, I suppose this is what the text implied. Ok.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
795
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K