Stuck on problem with determinants

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the determinant property for a matrix A, defined as an n x n matrix, where a specific row s is manipulated to derive matrices B and C. The key equation established is det(A) = det(B) + det(C), where B and C are constructed by separating the components of row s into two distinct matrices. The user seeks assistance in demonstrating that the function d(B) adheres to the properties of a determinant without relying on the expansion formula, specifically addressing row interchanges and row operations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix determinants and their properties.
  • Familiarity with row operations in linear algebra.
  • Knowledge of matrix notation and indexing conventions.
  • Experience with echelon forms and elementary matrices.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of determinants in linear algebra, focusing on row operations.
  • Learn about the construction and manipulation of matrices in determinant proofs.
  • Explore the concept of elementary matrices and their role in determinant calculations.
  • Investigate alternative methods for proving determinant properties without expansion formulas.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying linear algebra, matrix theory, and anyone engaged in proofs involving determinants and matrix manipulations.

xalvyn
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
hi all,

have a rather sticky problem on determinants to deal with...hope someone can offer some help.

[In what follows, the numbers in brackets denote suffixes, so that, for example, A(s)(j) refers to the element in the sth row of A and jth column of A.]

Let A be an n x n matrix. Let s be a fixed integer with 1=<s=<n. Suppose that A(s)(j) = b(s)(j) + c(s)(j) for j = 1, 2, ... n. Let B and C be the n x n matrixes defined by B(i)(j) = C(i)(j) = A(i)(j) for j = 1, 2, ..., n, if i is not equal to s; B(s)(j) = b(s)(j), j = 1, 2, ..., n; and C(s)(j) = c(s)(j), j = 1, 2, ..., n. Then prove that det (A) = det (B) + det (C).

First, we let c(s)(1), c(s)(2), ..., c(s)(n) be fixed and let d(B) = det (A) - det (C), where the rows of B, A, and C are the same except for row s; C(s)(j) = c(s)(j), j = 1, 2, ... n; A(s)(j) = B(s)(j) + C(s)(j), j = 1,2 , ...n.
The main difficulty I face is in proving that d(B) satisfies the properties of a determinant function without assuming the expansion formula for a determinant. The properties in question are:

1) If A' is obtained from A by an interchange of two rows of A, then d(A') = -d(A).

2) If A' is obtained from A by multiplying one row of A by a real number p, then d(A') = p d(A).

3) If A' is obtained from A by multiplying one row of A by a number and adding to another row, then d(A') = d(A).

4) d(I) = 1.

That d(B) satisfies these properties is fairly clear if row s is not involved. [for example, to prove d(b) satisfies 1): if we exchange two rows of B, neither of which is row s, this involves an interchanging of two rows of A and two rows of C, giving d(B') = -det(A) + det(C) = -d(B).]

but what if we consider the case when row s is interchanged with another row...?? I can't think of any way other than to expand the determinants of A' and C'! hope someone can help me out here..thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose you row-reduce all the other rows (not s) in the three matrices (A, B, and C) to echelon form using the same sequence of row operations (just sort of ignore the s row as this happens). Notice that the these rows are still equal among the matrices (the i-th row of A is the same as the i-th row of B, etc.). Then do necessary row exchanges to slide the s-th row into k-th row, where k is the column (or one of the columns) that lacks a pivot position. So each matrix now has been left multiplied by some matrix E (made from elementary ones). Then do some "multiplying one row of A by a number and adding to another row" till that special s row has 0's up till the k-th entry. Then consider the diagonal determinants.

And now you can fill in the blanks. Maybe there's a better way to do this problem, but I don't know enough algebra. :smile: Or maybe I do, and I'm just not seeing it...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K