Determinant is independent of row/column

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinant Independent
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The determinant's value, computed via the Laplace expansion, is independent of the row or column chosen for the expansion. This proof utilizes induction, starting from the trivial case of a 1x1 matrix and extending to nxn matrices. The discussion highlights the technical nature of the proof and suggests that a simpler, more detailed approach may be beneficial for those struggling with the complexity of existing proofs, such as the one found on Wikipedia.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Laplace expansion in determinants
  • Familiarity with matrix notation and operations
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical induction
  • Ability to interpret mathematical proofs and notations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the Laplace expansion on Wikipedia for a deeper understanding
  • Explore mathematical induction techniques in linear algebra
  • Practice calculating determinants using various methods, including cofactor expansion
  • Review matrix theory concepts, focusing on properties of determinants
USEFUL FOR

Students of linear algebra, mathematicians interested in matrix theory, and educators seeking to explain the properties of determinants effectively.

Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
I am curious about the proof of the fact that the value of a determinant computed using the Laplace (or cofactor) expansion is independent of along which row (or column) the expansion is performed.

Is this a very difficult proof? My textbook omits it entirely. I was curious if someone could provide a link to the proof, as I am interested in reading it. Wikipedia has a proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_expansion but it was too complicated for me to understand.

Does anyone know a simpler form of the proof i.e. one that is longer but clearer in its statements for a less insightful reader?

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the nature of the Laplace expansion, a proof is necessarily going to be ugly and technical.

HINT: it will be much easier to prove this yourself than to follow this proof.

Let me use the same notations as in wikipedia. So take a matrix B. Let me show that expansion along the first row yields the same result as expansion along the second row. The more general statement is left to you. We prove this by induction. For the 1x1 case, the statement is trivial.

So assume that B is nxn. Expansion along the first row yields
[tex]b_{1,1}C_{1,1}+...+b_{1,n}C_{1,n}=b_{1,1}M_{1,1}-b_{1,2}M_{1,2}+...+(-1)^{n+1}b_{1,n}M_{1,n}[/tex]

Expansion along the second row yields
[tex]b_{2,1}C_{2,1}+...+b_{2,n}C_{2,n}=-b_{2,1}M_{2,1}+b_{2,2}M_{2,2}+...+(-1)^{n+2}b_{2,n}M_{2,n}[/tex]

We wish to calculate [itex]M_{1,1}[/itex]. By definition this is the determinant of the matrix that results if we remove the first row and the first column from B. By induction hypothesis, we can calculate this determinant by taking the Laplace expansion along the first row. So we can write
[tex]M_{1,1}=b_{2,2}D_{1,2}^{1,2} - b_{3,2}D_{1,2}^{1,3}+...+(-1)^{2+n}D_{1,2}^{1,n}[/tex]
where [itex]D_{a,b}^{c,d}[/itex] is the determinant of the matrix resulting from B if we remove row a and b, and if we remove column c and d.
In general:
[tex]M_{1,k}=(-1)^{\delta(1,k)} b_{2,1}D_{1,2}^{1,k} +(-1)^{\delta(2,k)} b_{2,2}D_{1,2}^{2,k}+... + (-1)^{\delta(n,k)}b_{2,n}D_{1,2}^{n,k}[/tex]

We used the following notations: [itex]D_{1,2}^{k,k}=0[/itex] and [itex]\delta(l,k)[/itex] is the number of elements in [itex]\{1,...,l-1\}\setminus\{k\}[/itex].

To calculate [itex]M_{2,k}[/itex], we calculate this matrix by taking the Laplace expansion along the first row. We get
[tex]M_{2,k}=(-1)^{\delta(1,k)} b_{1,1}D_{1,2}^{1,k} + (-1)^{\delta(1,k)}b_{1,2}D_{1,2}^{2,k}+...+(-1)^{\delta(n,k)}b_{1,n}D_{1,2}^{n,k}[/tex]

We substitute these values of [itex]M_{1,k}[/itex] and [itex]M_{2,k}[/itex] into the original sum.

By definition we know that [itex]D_{1,2}^{j,k}=D_{1,2}^{k,j}[/itex]. We wish to prove that the coefficients of these terms are equal.
The coefficient of [itex]D_{1,2}^{j,k}[/itex] in the first sum is:
[tex](-1)^{k+1}b_{1,k}(-1)^{\delta(j,k)}b_{2,j}[/tex]
The coefficient of [itex]D_{1,2}^{k,j}[/itex] in the first sum is:
[tex](-1)^{j+1}b_{1,j}(-1)^{\delta(k,j)}b_{2,k}[/tex]
So together, we have
[tex](-1)^{k+\delta(j,k)+1}b_{1,k}b_{2,j}+ (-1)^{j+\delta(k,j)+1}b_{2,k}b_{2,j}[/tex]

We do the same for the terms in the second sum. The coefficient of [itex]D_{1,2}^{j,k}[/itex] in the second sum is:
[tex](-1)^{k+2}b_{2,k}(-1)^{\delta(j,k)}b_{1,j}[/tex]
The coefficient of [itex]D_{1,2}^{k,j}[/itex] in the second sum is:
[tex](-1)^{j+2}b_{2,j}(-1)^{\delta(k,j)}b_{1,k}[/tex]
So together we have
[tex](-1)^{k+\delta(j,k)+2}b_{2,j}b_{1,j}b_{2,k} + (-1)^{j+\delta(k,j)+2}b_{2,j}b_{1,k}[/tex]

In order that both sums are equal, it suffices to show that
[tex](-1)^{j+\delta(k,j)+2}=(-1)^{k+\delta(j,k)+1}[/tex]
Assume first that [itex]k<j[/itex]. Then [itex]\delta(k,j)[/itex] is the number of elements in [itex]\{1,...,k-1\}\setminus \{j\}[/itex] and this is k-1. So the left-hand side becomes
[tex](-1)^{j+k+1}[/tex]
If [itex]k<j[/itex], then [itex]\delta(j,k)[/itex] is the number of elements in [itex]\{1,...,j-1\}\setminus \{k\}[/itex] and this is j-2. So the right hand side becomes
[tex](-1)^{k+j-1}[/tex]
Clearly, the left-hand side equals the right-hand side.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
254K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
819
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K