Determinant of symmetric matrix with non negative integer element

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the determinant of a specific symmetric matrix A with non-negative integer elements, expressed as det(A) = [(-1)^n][n][2^(n-1)]. Users suggest using mathematical induction to establish a general proof, focusing on the transition from n = k to n = k + 1 by evaluating an additional minor determinant. For the specific case of n = 4, participants recommend directly calculating the determinant by expanding it and simplifying. Additionally, they advise manipulating the matrix by adding or subtracting rows or columns to simplify the computation. The conversation emphasizes both general proof techniques and specific evaluation strategies.
golekjwb
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Let \begin{equation*}
A=%
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \cdots & n-1 & n \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & n-2 & n-1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
n-1 & n-2 & \cdots & 0 & 1 \\
n& n-2 & \cdots & 1 & 0%
\end{bmatrix}%
\end{equation*}.
How can you prove that det(A)=[(-1)^n][n][2^(n-1)]? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Try n=4
 
golekjwb said:
Try n=4

Hey golekjwb and welcome to the forums.

For the general proof I would use an induction argument. The differences between say n = k and n = k + 1 has to do with evaluating one extra minor determinant for that extra row and you would show that under a simplification that the formula is correct.

For a specific n=4, just evaluate the determinant for that particular dimension for your particular matrix, expand out and see what you get.
 
welcome to pf!

hi golekjwb! welcome to pf! :smile:

have you tried adding or subtracting rows or columns, to get a simpler matrix?
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K