Linear Algebra Determinant proof

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the determinant of a matrix in the form of an upper triangular matrix is equal to the product of its leading diagonal elements. Participants clarify that this property applies to both upper and lower triangular matrices. The importance of formally stating definitions and theorems used in proofs is emphasized, along with the suggestion to reference the Laplace expansion of the determinant for clarity. A geometric interpretation of the determinant as related to the area of a parallelogram is also mentioned. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for precision and clarity in mathematical proofs.
TanWu
Messages
17
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
(a) Show that a matrix ##\left(\begin{array}{ll}e & g \\ 0 & f\end{array}\right)## has determinant equal to the product of the elements on the leading diagonal. Can you generalise this idea to any ##n \times n## matrix?
Relevant Equations
##\left(\begin{array}{ll}e & g \\ 0 & f\end{array}\right)##
I have a doubt about this problem.

(a) Show that a matrix ##\left(\begin{array}{ll}e & g \\ 0 & f\end{array}\right)## has determinant equal to the product of the elements on the leading diagonal. Can you generalize this idea to any ##n \times n## matrix? The first part is simple, it is just ef.

I have a doubt about what ##n \times n## matrix they want generalized too, for example do they want a upper triangular ##n \times n## matrix like the one the author as written or a lower triangular, or general matrix, etc.

I express gratitude to those who help.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and nuuskur
Physics news on Phys.org
The determinant of an upper or lower triangular matrix is equal to the product of the elements on the leading diagonal.

An upper triangular matrix is a square matrix whose entries below the leading diagonal are zero.

The claim follows quickly provided you are familiar with the Laplace expansion of the determinant.

Also, good job on using much more helpful titles. :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK and TanWu
Thank you Sir. Apologize, I am not familiar with that.
 
In the "Relevant Equations" section, you should state how you have defined the determinant or any already-proven fact(s) that you use in your proof.
In general, you should work on stating your proofs in a more formal way. Where they are used, your proof should state what definitions, theorems, or lemas you are using.
 
note that geometrically this is the fact that the area of a parallelogram equals that of the rectangle with same height and base.
 
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...