Proving Determinant(AB)=det(A)det(B)

  • Thread starter Thread starter touch the sky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinant
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the property that the determinant of the product of two matrices, det(AB), equals the product of their determinants, det(A)det(B). Various methods are suggested, including using elementary matrices and induction, as well as transforming matrices into triangular form to simplify the proof. It is emphasized that the proof holds for both singular and non-singular matrices. Clarification is provided regarding the notation used, specifically that the elements a_1, a_2, etc., refer to the rows of matrix A. The conversation highlights the importance of adhering to the row-column rule for matrix multiplication.
touch the sky
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement

the problem is to prove that determinant(AB)=det(A)det(B)



Homework Equations


i don't think there is any equation. :(


The Attempt at a Solution

i can figure it out by taking arbitrary elements in rows and columns , but i was wondering if i can prove it in a more elegant way.
thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can use a few different methods.
One way is to say that an invertible matrix is the product of elementary matrices, use some knowledge about determinants of elementary matrices (det(EA) = det(E)det(A) if E is elementary.) and do an induction proof.There is also another way where you need to know that:

You can turn a square matrix into a triangular matrix that doesn't change the determinant (up to a sign change).

The product of two triangular matrices is also triangular.

The determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of the diagonal elements.
 
touch the sky said:

Homework Statement

the problem is to prove that determinant(AB)=det(A)det(B)



Homework Equations


i don't think there is any equation. :(


The Attempt at a Solution

i can figure it out by taking arbitrary elements in rows and columns , but i was wondering if i can prove it in a more elegant way.
thanks a lot!

When I was a little girl I used to ask these types of question all the time, but discovered if you first read the paragraphs then you discover something wonderful like.

The property that det(AB) = Det(A) \cdot Det(B) can be proven using standard operations.
You remember that AB =[a_1, a_2,\ldots a_n] \cdot B if you then take the Det on both sides of the equality You will get Det(AB) = Det([a_1, a_2,\ldots a_n]) \cdot Det(B) this fact works on both singular and non-singular cases.

Enjoy :)
 
Susanne217 said:
When I was a little girl I used to ask these types of question all the time, but discovered if you first read the paragraphs then you discover something wonderful like.

The property that det(AB) = Det(A) \cdot Det(B) can be proven using standard operations.
You remember that AB =[a_1, a_2,\ldots a_n] \cdot B
This doesn't make any sense if you don't say what "a_1", "a_2", etc. are to start with! Are they rows of A or columns of A? And what do you mean by that product?

if you then take the Det on both sides of the equality You will get Det(AB) = Det([a_1, a_2,\ldots a_n]) \cdot Det(B) this fact works on both singular and non-singular cases.

Enjoy :)
 
HallsofIvy said:
This doesn't make any sense if you don't say what "a_1", "a_2", etc. are to start with! Are they rows of A or columns of A? And what do you mean by that product?

You are right :)

a_1, a_2, \cdots a_n are row in the matrix A. I also forgot to mention for this be allowed then A and B must live up to the row column rule :)
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top