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.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top