Maximum determinant of matrix with only 1 and -1 elements?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the maximum determinant of an nxn matrix composed solely of 1 and -1 elements. The original poster has attempted to solve the problem for 2x2 and 3x3 matrices but has not identified a clear pattern for generalization. They express uncertainty about the applicability of the Leibniz Formula for Determinants in this context. Additionally, there is a request for clarification on how determinants are defined and what methods are typically used to calculate them. The conversation highlights the challenges in deriving a solution for this specific matrix determinant problem.
mvgmonteiro
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
1. The problem statement:
Find out the maximum determinant of a matrix nxn which have just 1 and -1 elements.

2. The attempt at a solution:
I have tried for 2x2 and 3x3 matrices and so generalizing for nxn matrices. But I can’t figure out any pattern or something like that. Also, I barely know about the Leibniz Formula for Determinants, and don’t think so that it is helpful here. Thus, I am just stucked at that problem, and don’t have any great idea so far..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mvgmonteiro said:
1. The problem statement:
Find out the maximum determinant of a matrix nxn which have just 1 and -1 elements.

2. The attempt at a solution:
I have tried for 2x2 and 3x3 matrices and so generalizing for nxn matrices. But I can’t figure out any pattern or something like that. Also, I barely know about the Leibniz Formula for Determinants, and don’t think so that it is helpful here. Thus, I am just stucked at that problem, and don’t have any great idea so far..
I don't know what the Leibniz formula is in this context. But how is a determinant defined? What do you work with?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K