Probability a determinant is odd

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the probability that the value of a determinant, formed from arbitrary integers, is odd. The discussion suggests working modulo 2 to analyze the properties of the determinant.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various cases for n=1, n=2, and n=3, discussing recursive relationships and the independence of cofactors. There is a focus on the implications of row reduction and the randomness of submatrices.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the recursive nature of the problem and the probabilities associated with different matrix sizes. There is ongoing debate about the characterization of the (n-1)x(n-1) submatrix as random, with differing opinions on the validity of this assumption.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of proving the randomness of submatrices and question the definitions of randomness in this context. There is an acknowledgment of the challenges in formalizing the proof without becoming overly complicated.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] probability a determinant is odd

Homework Statement


The elements of a determinant are arbitrary integers. Determine the probability that the value of the determinant is odd. (Hint: Work mod 2).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


When n=1, the probability is 1/2. When n = 2, the probability is 3/8. That is the last case I can do by hand. I am trying to find a recursion, but that is hard as the following example illustrates.

For n=3, if you expand along the first column, you can multiply the probability that a_{11} is odd by the probability that its cofactor is odd and than do the same for a_{21} and a_{31}. You can ignore the sign of the cofactor because we are working mod 2. So, we can just add these three terms.

It would be nice if you could apply the n=2 case to the cofactors, but the probability the cofactor of a_{11} is odd is not independent of the probability that the a_{21} cofactor is odd, so I don't think that you can just replace those probabilities by P_{n-1}.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anyone?
 
Let P(n) be the probability an nxn matrix has 0 determinant mod 2. Do a row reduction on the first column. Add rows until there is a single 1 and the rest 0's. Let Q(n) be the probability you cannot do this (i.e. the whole first column is 0's). Argue that the (n-1)x(n-1) minor is still a random matrix mod 2. So the probability P(n)=Q(n)+(1-Q(n))P(n-1). Test it. Q(2)=1/4, P(1)=1/2, so P(2)=1/4+(3/4)*(1/2)=5/8.
 
Last edited:
Here is the complete proof:

Consider a random random n by n matrix mod 2.

Let P(n) be the probability an nxn matrix has determinant equal to 1.
Let Q(n) be the probability that every element in the first column is a 0. In this case the determinant is 0.

If there are any 1s in the first column, select one, say a_{i0}. Add a_i to every other row that has a one in the first column. I claim that the (n-1)by(n-1) submatrix induced by deleting row i and column 0 is still random. To prove this, I need to show that the probability of having a 0 in any of its elements is exactly 1/2. Let a_jk be a given a element in this submatrix. The probability that a_jk is 0 after our row reductions is:

P(a_jk=0)*P(a_j0 = 0)+P(a_jk= 0)*P(a_j0 = 1)*P(a_ik=0)+P(a_jk = 1)*P(a_j0 = 1)*P(a_ik=1) =1/2*1/2+1/2*1/2*1/2+1/2*1/2*1/2 = 1/4+1/8+1/8=1/2

where each of the probabilities are for the INITIAL RANDOM MATRIX.

Therefore, 1-P(n) = Q(n)+(1-Q(n))(1-P(n-1)).

Q(n)=(1/2)^n P(1)=1/2.
The answer is then P(n) = 1 - (1/2)^n +((1/2)^n-1)(1-P(n-1)) = ((1/2)^n-1)(-1+1-P(n-1))=(1-(1/2)^n)P(n-1).
 
Last edited:
Seems ok to me. I don't much like the 'proof' that the (n-1)x(n-1) submatrix is truly 'random' but I can't think of anything better without getting long winded. The row operations are reversible and the first column is independent of the other columns so it's sort of 'obvious'.
 
I don't see anything wrong with my proof that the (n-1)x(n-1) submatrix is random. I edited that post, so maybe you read the old version.
 
That I don't 'like' it doesn't mean I don't accept it. You don't have a formal definition of a 'random' matrix either, so I don't think it's worth putting a lot of worry time in. Let's just stick with what you have.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
867
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K