Determinant of a Block Lower Triangular Matrix

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the determinant of a block lower triangular matrix, specifically showing that det(A, 0; C, D) equals det(A) * det(D). The proof involves demonstrating the multiplication of specific block matrices and applying a lemma regarding determinants. Participants express challenges in articulating their solutions concisely and elegantly, particularly when using notation. Suggestions include using sigma notation and defining matrices clearly to facilitate understanding. The overall focus is on clarity in mathematical writing while tackling the determinant theorem.
Vespero
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Theorem. Let A be a k by k matrix, let D have size n by n and let C have size n by k. Then

det \left(\begin{array}{cc}A&0\\C&D\end{array}\right) = (det A)\cdot (det D).

Proof. First show that
\left(\begin{array}{cc}A&0\\0&I_{n}\end{array}\right) \cdot \left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{k}&0\\C&D\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}A&0\\C&D\end{array}\right)

Then use the following lemma:

Let A be an n by n matrix; let b denote its entry in row i and column j.
(a) If all the entries in row i other than b vanish, then
det A = b(-1)^{i+j}det A_{ij}

(b) The same equation holds if all the entries in column j other than the entry b vanish.



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I am attempting to show the first part of the problem, where our initial matrix is broken into two further matrices. Given the dimensions of the block matrices, or even writing out the entire matrices with individual entries and multiplying (since all multiplications are in essence the rows and columns of the block matrices multiplied either by standard base matrices or by zero matrices), it is readily apparent that the equation holds true. However, I am not sure how to write this out in a way that is concise, possibly utilizing sigma notation. (I haven't taken a "higher level" math class in a while, so even when things make sense intuitively or computationally, I'm not sure how to notate them.)

On the second part, (using the lemma), it is again apparent that the determinants of the two matrices simplify down to det A and det D by recursively using the lemma on the diagonal of the identity matrix until one is left with the determinant of the other matrix on the diagonal, but I'm not sure how to write this concisely.

In essence, I suppose my problem is less one of how to understand or solve the problem, but how to write my solution in a manner that isn't rambling and unelegant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vespero said:

Homework Statement



Theorem. Let A be a k by k matrix, let D have size n by n and let C have size n by k. Then

det \left(\begin{array}{cc}A&0\\C&D\end{array}\right) = (det A)\cdot (det D).

Proof. First show that
\left(\begin{array}{cc}A&0\\0&I_{n}\end{array}\right) \cdot \left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{k}&0\\C&D\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}A&0\\C&D\end{array}\right)

Then use the following lemma:

Let A be an n by n matrix; let b denote its entry in row i and column j.
(a) If all the entries in row i other than b vanish, then
det A = b(-1)^{i+j}det A_{ij}

(b) The same equation holds if all the entries in column j other than the entry b vanish.



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I am attempting to show the first part of the problem, where our initial matrix is broken into two further matrices. Given the dimensions of the block matrices, or even writing out the entire matrices with individual entries and multiplying (since all multiplications are in essence the rows and columns of the block matrices multiplied either by standard base matrices or by zero matrices), it is readily apparent that the equation holds true. However, I am not sure how to write this out in a way that is concise, possibly utilizing sigma notation. (I haven't taken a "higher level" math class in a while, so even when things make sense intuitively or computationally, I'm not sure how to notate them.)
I'd try writing it like this, though there might be a more elegant way to notate everything.

Write the product as M=QP where
$$Q_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
A_{ij} & \text{if } i\le k \text{ and } j \le k \\
0 & \text{if } i\gt k \text{ and } j \le k \\
0 & \text{if } i\le k \text{ and } j \gt k \\
\delta_{ij} & \text{if } i \gt k \text{ and } j \gt k
\end{cases}$$ where ##\delta_{ij}## is the Kronecker delta. P is defined similarly (I'll leave it to you to do that). Then calculate ##M_{ij}## for the four cases separately. For example, when ##i\le k## and ##j \le k##, you have
$$M_{ij} = \sum_{l=1}^{n+k} Q_{il}P_{lj} = \sum_{l=1}^{k} Q_{il}P_{lj} + \sum_{l=k+1}^{n+k} Q_{il}P_{lj} = \sum_{l=1}^{k} A_{il}\delta_{lj} + \sum_{l=k+1}^{n+k} 0\times C_{(l-k)j} = A_{ij}$$
 
It might be neater to prove the more general result, that
$$\begin{pmatrix} A & B \\ C & D\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} P & Q \\ R & S\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} AP + BR & AQ + BS \\ CP + DR & CQ + DS \end{pmatrix}$$
where the number of rows and columns in the partitioned matrices match up. Just write down the expression for a term in the product and split it into two parts.

That result is not restricted to square matrices, or some of the partitions being square.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
848
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K