Determinant of a matrix over the integers mod n

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion confirms that for any prime number n, the determinant of a matrix M over the integers mod n, denoted as \det_{\mathbb{Z}_n}M, is equivalent to the determinant of M over the real numbers mod n, expressed as (\det_{\mathbb{R}}M) mod n. However, it is clarified that \mathbb{Z}_n is not a field, and the correct interpretation involves performing arithmetic operations on the matrix entries as integers before reducing the result modulo n. This distinction is crucial for accurate calculations in modular arithmetic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix determinants
  • Familiarity with modular arithmetic
  • Knowledge of fields and rings in abstract algebra
  • Basic concepts of linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of determinants in modular arithmetic
  • Explore the differences between fields and rings in algebra
  • Learn about the implications of prime moduli in matrix operations
  • Investigate applications of determinants in cryptography and coding theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the applications of determinants in modular arithmetic and linear algebra.

jdstokes
Messages
520
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I'm curious if the following statement is true for all prime numbers n,

\det_{\mathbb{Z}_n}M = (\det_{\mathbb{R}}M)\mod n

where \det_F M is the determinant of M over the field F.

Thanks.

James
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Z isn't a field. But if you mean that if you take a matrix, and compute its determinant by multiplying, adding, and subtracting the entries as integers and then reduce mod n, versus if you do all the arithmetic mod n, then the answer is 'yes'.
 
Thanks for the correction, I guess what I meant to say was \mathbb{R}.
 
no, what you meant to saY WAS THATyour notation denoted the determinant over the ring F.

since you cannot consider elements of R as if they were in Z/n unless they are integers.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
888
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
972