Determinant of 4 x 4 Upper-triangle: 36

  • Thread starter Thread starter rocomath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinant
rocomath
Messages
1,752
Reaction score
1
Ok, I have gotten different answers by reducing to an upper triangle, co-factor, and my calculator. All 3 giving me different answers!

|Upper-triangle| = lol, was looking at the wrong problem ... I did get 36.
|Co-factor reduction mobob| = uh i keep messing it up
|Calculator| = 36

1 2 3 0
2 6 6 1
-1 0 0 3
0 2 0 7

Expanding using row 3

(a)
-1
2 3 0
6 6 1
2 0 7

(b)
-3
1 2 3
2 6 6
0 2 0

Expanding once again to reduce it to a 2 x 2

(a)
-1 times determinant of these 2 x 2

2
3 0
6 1

7
2 3
6 6

(b)
-3

-2
1 3
2 6
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maxima, the free computer software of my choice, says 36. Doing it by hand the determinant of your first 3x3 is -36. The determinant of the second 3x3 is 0.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
Maxima, the free computer software of my choice, says 36.
Ok the book answer has to be wrong then.
 
I really think it is 36.
 
"Row reduction" reduces that matrix to
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1 & 2 & 3 & 0 \\0 & 2 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 3 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 6
and the product along the diagonal is 36.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top