Determinant as a function of trace

lukluk
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
for dimension 2, the following relation between determinant and trace of a square matrix A is true:

det A=((Tr A)2-Tr (A2))/2

for dimension 3 a similar identity can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant

Does anyone know the generalization to dimension 4 ?

lukluk
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks very much!
so to see if I understand, the n=4 determinant can be written as

det A=(p14-6p12p2+3p22+8p1p3-6p4)/24

where
pi=Tr (Ai)

...right?
 
Right!

Btw, you can check this yourself if you know a little bit about eigenvalues.

Did you know that each nxn matrix has n eigenvalues?
And that the determinant is the product of the eigenvalues?
And that the trace is the sum of the eigenvalues?
And the the trace of A^k is the sum of each eigenvalue^k?
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top