Minimum Absolute Value of a nxn Matrix Determinant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the minimum absolute value of the determinant of an n by n matrix filled with the numbers 1 to n^2, each appearing exactly once. Participants clarify that the matrix entries consist of all integers from 1 to n^2. For a 2x2 matrix, various arrangements are explored, yielding different determinant values. A strategy is suggested for larger matrices, involving placing the largest numbers along the main diagonal and smaller numbers in off-diagonal positions. The conclusion states that for n ≥ 3, the minimum absolute value of the determinant is 0.
skymariner
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The following matrix problem occurred to me. I figured out the answer and would like to pose the problem. It's easy but would be best for an undergrad math major. The question: Consider a square n by n matrix with entries 1, 2, ..., n squared. Find a way to arrange these entries so that the absolute value of the determinate of this matrix is a minimum.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
"a square n by n matrix with entries 1, 2, ..., n squared"

could you explain this a little better? Do you mean that the matrix have entries 1,2,3,...,n^2, and do all appear and only once?
 
Yes, the entries consist of all the numbers 1 to n^2 and each number occurs only once.
 
Let's see it for a 2x2 matrix. Since a transposition of rows and columns does not change the value of the matrix, and a transposition of row or columns changes the sign, it is sufficient to consider how many different rows we can form. For a 2x2 matrix, we can form the first row in 3 ways (pairing one fixed element with the other 3 elements) and the second row can be formed in the 2 possible permutations of the remaining elements, so 3x2 = 6 possible determinants. Here they are:
<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 2 \\<br /> <br /> 3 &amp; 4<br /> \end{array}\right| = 4 - 6 = -2<br />

<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 2 \\<br /> <br /> 4 &amp; 3<br /> \end{array}\right| = 3 - 8 = -5<br />

<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 3 \\<br /> <br /> 2 &amp; 4<br /> \end{array}\right| = 4 - 6 = -2<br />

<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 3 \\<br /> <br /> 4 &amp; 2<br /> \end{array}\right| = 2 - 12 = -10<br />

<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 4 \\<br /> <br /> 2 &amp; 3<br /> \end{array}\right| = 3 - 8 = -5<br />

<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 4 \\<br /> <br /> 3 &amp; 2<br /> \end{array}\right| = 2 - 12 = -10<br />

I don't see how to generalize it at this point. I would think we need to add the biggest numbers n^{2}, (n - 1)^{2}, \ldots, n^{2} - n +1 along the main diagonal, then the next along the third to the main diagonal and start inserting the smallest elements along the odd diagonals.
 
I don't want to spoil other people's fun with this so I'll give the answer without a proof:
When n >= 3, the minimum absolute value of the determinant is 0.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top