Linear Algebra - Determinant functions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a function D defined on 2x2 matrices over the field of real numbers, focusing on properties of determinants. Participants are exploring various properties of this function, including its behavior under specific conditions and operations involving matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss proving properties of the function D, such as D(0) = 0 and D(A) = 0 for singular matrices. Some suggest using specific matrices to illustrate points, while others question the implications of D(I) and D(J) being unequal.

Discussion Status

Several participants have made attempts to prove different properties of the function D, with some providing insights into specific cases and relationships between matrices. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the properties discussed, and some participants express enthusiasm about the problem's complexity.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that D is a function satisfying certain multiplicative properties, and there is a mention of a follow-up question that builds on the initial discussion without assuming prior results. The nature of the homework constraints is implied but not explicitly stated.

WiFO215
Messages
417
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Let R be the field of real numbers, and let D be a function on 2x2 matrices over R, with values in R, such that D(AB) = D(A)D(B) for all A, B. Suppose that D(I) != D ([0 1 1 0])

Prove that
a) D(0) = 0
b) D(A) = 0 if A2= 0
c) D(B) = -D(A) if B is obtained by interchanging the rows of A
d) D(A) = 0 if one row of A is 0
e) D(A) = 0 whenever A is singular

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I can prove a) by assuming A=B=0. But that also leaves the case that D(0) = 1 which I don't know how to disprove. I'm clueless on the rest of them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the first one, try letting B unspecified (arbitrary).
For the second one, use A = B.
 
For the third one, use that D(I) is not equal to D(J) where I=[[1,0],[0,1]] and J=[[0,1],[1,0]]. If D(I)=1 then D(J) MUST be -1. Can you show that using I^2=J^2=I? Now use that for any matrix A, JA is A with the rows interchanged.
 
Dick said:
For the third one, use that D(I) is not equal to D(J) where I=[[1,0],[0,1]] and J=[[0,1],[1,0]]. If D(I)=1 then D(J) MUST be -1. Can you show that using I^2=J^2=I? Now use that for any matrix A, JA is A with the rows interchanged.

That one's kinda brilliant :)
 
CompuChip said:
That one's kinda brilliant :)

Kinda fun is what it is. That's a cute problem.
 
I proved e) and therefore automatically proved d) as follows.

Let Q be the matrix [ [1 -1] [1 -1] ]. I have some singular function which will be of the form P = [ [X Y] [cX cY] ] where c is some arbitrary constant. Let L = [ [X Y] [0 0] ]

Now Q times L is [ [X Y] [X Y] ] which is singular. Other singular matrices P can be made by "modifying" the bottom row of Q i.e. multiplying the bottom row of Q by some scalar c will give you any other singular function of the form P that can be made from L. So let us consider the most basic case.

D(QL) = D(Q)D(L) ... Given
but D(Q) = 0 since Q2 = 0
Now, D(QL) = D(P) since QL = P
So, D(QL) = 0 = D(P)

Therefore, since c can take value zero also, the above result is true for ANY singular matrix, inluding L itself. Hence d) is also proved.
 
Dick that was awesome!Thanks! Thanks CompuChip! Check my above post too.
 
Here's part of a follow up question to that question (I proved the first part myself)

D is an alternating 2-linear function on 2x2 matrices over some commutative ring K with identity. Using D(A) = det A D(I) show that det (AB) = (detA)(detB) without using computations with the entries.

I proved that D(A) = det (A) D(I) for 2x2 matrices, but I can't seem to prove that second part.
 
Can't you just write
det(AB) = D(AB) / D(I)
because D(I) is non-zero, and use what you know about D, in particular D(AB)?
 
  • #10
But for this follow up question, I cannot assume that D(AB) = D(A)D(B) and it is not given so.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K