Determinant of A^t A

  • #1
240
42
I have a problem of proving an identity about determinants. For ##A\in M_{m\times n}(\mathbb{R}),## a matrix with ##m## rows and ##n## columns, prove the following identity.

$$|\det(A^tA)|=\sum_{1\le j_1\le ... \le j_n \le m} (det(A_{j_1...j_n}))^2$$
where ##A_{j_1...j_n}## is the matrix whose ##(i,k)##-entry is ##a_{j,k},## and ##A^t## is the transpose of ##A.##

The example of this is given here to make clear:

$$\det (
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 3 &5\\
2 & 4 &6\\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
3 & 4 \\
5 & 6
\end{pmatrix}) =
(\det\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
3 & 4 \\
\end{pmatrix})^2+
(\det\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
5 & 6 \\
\end{pmatrix})^2+
(\det\begin{pmatrix}
3 & 4 \\
5 & 6 \\
\end{pmatrix})^2
.$$

The equation is clearly holds fro square matrix, but for general type I cannot solve...I try to prove it in induction from ##m\times n## to ##(m+1)\times n## but failed. This may be related to the notion of area (the given example is the area of a triangle on a plane).
Thanks for any ideas in advance!!!
 
  • Like
Likes Paul Colby

Answers and Replies

  • #2
14,389
11,705
I have trouble to understand the notation ##A_{j_1 ... j_n}##. Your example is a ##m \times n = 3 \times 2## matrix, so possible arrays are ##(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,3).## Could you explain, e.g. ##A_{13}## and ##A_{22}##?
 
  • #3
240
42
I have trouble to understand the notation ##A_{j_1 ... j_n}##. Your example is a ##m \times n = 3 \times 2## matrix, so possible arrays are ##(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,3).## Could you explain, e.g. ##A_{13}## and ##A_{22}##?
That's my error, and in my example you may see apparently. The correct version should be: ##\sum_{1\le j_1<...<j_n\le n}.##
 
  • #4
14,389
11,705
That's my error, and in my example you may see apparently. The correct version should be: ##\sum_{1\le j_1<...<j_n\le n}.##
Still doesn't explain ##A_{13}##. Normally such a notation denotes a diagonal or cofactor. What does it mean for a matrix, that isn't square?
 
  • #5
240
42
It means the matrix$$
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
5 & 6 \\
\end{pmatrix},$$
like the notation above.
Besides I found another error that it should be: "where ##A_{j_1...j_n}## is the matrix whose ##(i,k)##-entry is ##a_{j_ik},## and ##A^t## is the transpose of ##A.##"
 
  • #6
14,389
11,705
Sorry. Maybe I'm stupid or stubborn, possibly both. But if
$$A_{13} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 && 2 \\ 3 && 4 \\ 5 && 6 \end{bmatrix}_{13} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 && 2 \\ 5 && 6 \end{bmatrix},$$
##A_{13}## means the second row is deleted? But your sum allows only the array ##(1,2)## since you corrected the summation boundary from ##m = 3## to ##n=2##.
Or do you write the columns first and rows second? You have, as I am used to, a ##(3 \times 2)-##matrix ##A \in \mathbb{M}_{3 \times 2}(\mathbb{R}).## Note that ##A## is the second factor in ##\det (A^t A)##.

I try to understand the task and if it is possible at all. Matrices that aren't square matrices don't occur that often so I'm not used to them. Especially I'm asking myself how the formula would look like, if ##A## is simply a vector.
 
  • #7
240
42
Oops, error again... My correction focused on changing ##"\le"## to ##"<".## The boundary is from ##1## to ##m## like initially.Thanks for your check again!! Do you have any ideas?
 
  • #8
14,389
11,705
Oops, error again... My correction focused on changing ##"\le"## to ##"<".## The boundary is from ##1## to ##m## like initially.Thanks for your check again!! Do you have any ideas?
If ##A^t = (a_1, \dots ,a_m)## then ##A## has ##m## rows and ##n=1## column.
Thus ##| \det(A^t A) | = | \sum_{j=1}^{j=m} a_j^2 |## and ##1 \leq j_1 \leq m## is the only array of indices ##j_k##. Therefore ##A_j = a_j## is the only meaningful way to define ##A_j## and the formula is valid. So, I assume the ##j-## array denotes the numbers of rows that are not to be eliminated.
Give me a second to check the left hand side determinant of your example. The general formula for determinants is a bit complicated to handle.
 
  • Like
Likes tommyxu3
  • #9
240
42
So, I assume the ##j-## array denotes the numbers of rows that are not to be eliminated.
That's right what I want to convey.
Thanks for your assistance!!
 
  • #10
14,389
11,705
Ok. Your example isn't a counterexample. Both sides sum up to ##24##.
Induction is probably an ugly task. We have ##m \times 1## so the induction step would be the equation for ##m \times (n+1)## given the formula for ##m \times n##. I have to think about a less uncomfortable way. I'm sure there is one.
Edit: It could certainly be done by calculating the determinant along the additional last column.
 
  • #11
14,389
11,705
An idea is to make ##A## a square matrix by filling the additional positions with zeros. Only on the main diagonal have to be ones.
 
  • Like
Likes tommyxu3
  • #12
240
42
I have tried, and let me see later!! Thanks~~
But I remembered the remainder may make some troubles?
 
  • #13
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2020 Award
11,100
1,302
  • #14
240
42
the det of the transpose equals the det of the original matrix, and the det of a product equals the product of the matrices.
Yes, and I say that the statement is true for square matrix. You may misunderstand the statement that I didn't require ##A## is square.
 
  • #15
240
42
Induction is probably an ugly task. We have ##m \times 1## so the induction step would be the equation for ##m \times (n+1)## given the formula for ##m \times n##. I have to think about a less uncomfortable way. I'm sure there is one.
Edit: It could certainly be done by calculating the determinant along the additional last column.
My another idea is since it holds for square, then do inductions from ##m\times n## to ##(m+1)\times n##?
By the way, your edit meant the induction from##m\times n## to ##m\times (n+1)## works?
 
  • #16
14,389
11,705
My another idea is since it holds for square, then do inductions from ##m\times n## to ##(m+1)\times n##?
By the way, your edit meant the induction from##m\times n## to ##m\times (n+1)## works?
It should work, because the statement appears to be true. I have taken this inductive step, because the basis case ##m \times 1## is obviously true and allows to be proven for any ##m## so no other induction is necessary. And expanding a determinant along only one column (the ##1## in ##m \times (n+1)##) and applying the inductive hypothesis ##(n \times m)## to the sub-determinants of this expansion might keep the mess bounded.

If we take ##A## to be a ##(1 \times n)-##matrix, then ##A^t A## is a ##(n \times n)-##matrix of rank ##1##, i.e. zero determinate. On the RHS we then get an empty matrix or empty sum, which is be definition ##0##. So even in this extreme case it is true. Have you checked other matrices of determinant zero, just to see what happens?


I have also thought about other ways. Replacing the determinants by its complete formulas (weighted sum over all diagonal products) looks even more messy. The LHS might be controllable, but I have no idea how to interpret the RHS with its wiped-out rows.
 
  • #17
240
42
Really... other expansions may take lots of time...anyway...
Thanks for your help~~
 
  • #18
14,389
11,705
Really... other expansions may take lots of time...anyway...
Thanks for your help~~
If you are allowed to interpret determinants by volumes of cubes, this might shorten the proof. The reduced matrices ##A_{j_1 ... j_n}## could then be interpreted as orthogonal projections on subspaces.
 
  • #19
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2020 Award
11,100
1,302
in relation to fresh's idea to make the matrix square, what about adding (to the given 3x2 example) a third row which is a unit vector orthogonal to the other two rows? then the new product is 3x3 and equals the old product plus a "1" in the lower right corner, and zeroes elsewhere in the new row and column, so getting the same determinant. this should generalize to adding new rows that are orthogonal to the old rows and to each other and have length one. does this work?

oops, this makes the matrix square, but does not obviously prove the result.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2020 Award
11,100
1,302
isn't this related to the pythagorean theorem for areas? i.e. isn't the sum of the squares of those 2x2 determinants equal to the square of the area of the parallelogram spanned by the 2 rows in 3 space? i.e. as fresh(?) suggested, the sum of the squares of the areas of the projections of the parallelogram onto the 3 planes, equals the square of the area of the original parallelogram. i seem to recall this, maybe provable from looking at the coordinates of the cross product?
 
  • #21
240
42
isn't this related to the pythagorean theorem for areas?
It is!~~
And finally I proved it by decomposing it to matrix unit~ I think the induction also look troublesome...haha
Thanks for your help both!!
 

Related Threads on Determinant of A^t A

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
551
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
6K
Top