- #1

- 486

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter leon1127
- Start date

- #1

- 486

- 0

- #2

JasonRox

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,323

- 3

http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~daddel...plications/Determinant/Determinant/node3.html

It doesn't seem like the definition assume commutativity. So, I guess it would work.

I'm totally not sure about this. I'm just throwing this thought in the air.

- #3

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

- #4

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Your algebra A is a finite dimensional algebra over the reals -- I think that implies that it can be represented as an algebra of real matrices. So you can view your matrix over A as a matrix over R, and take the (real-valued!) determinant of that.

- #5

- 486

- 0

Your algebra A is a finite dimensional algebra over the reals -- I think that implies that it can be represented as an algebra of real matrices. So you can view your matrix over A as a matrix over R, and take the (real-valued!) determinant of that.

However, that is not that I am working with. I am playing with Clifford algebra and it is known that every element of Cl(p+1, q+1) can be represented by M(2, Cl(p,q)) and M(n, T) where T = R, C or H. Of course the definition of determinant is trivial when T = R or C, but I am not sure if the Laplace expansion still works on quaternionic matrices. If I can compute the determinant in that case, it will suggest the norm function for Cl(p+1, q+1).

Thank you for your suggestion by the way. I searched with the keyword pseudodeterminant while the suggested keyword 'noncommutative determinant' is more obvious.

Share: