Trace and Determinant Relationship: Proving the Relation with O(x^2)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alle.fabbri
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinant Trace
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving the relationship between the determinant of the matrix expression \( \det(I + x A) \) and its trace, specifically the relation \( \det(I + x A) = 1 + x \tr A + O(x^2) \). The scope includes mathematical reasoning and formal proof techniques related to determinants and traces of matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks hints for proving the relation involving the determinant and trace.
  • Another participant suggests that the determinant can be expressed as a polynomial in \( x \) and proposes focusing on the constant- and linear-order terms.
  • A further contribution discusses using the general determinant expansion involving the total antisymmetric tensor, indicating a desire for more formal calculations.
  • One participant corrects the previous claim about the determinant being an average, stating that it is actually the anti-symmetrized sum of products.
  • Another participant recommends diagonalizing \( A \) or transforming it to upper-triangular form to facilitate a formal proof, noting the invariance of the identity matrix under similarity transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the approach to proving the relationship, with some advocating for polynomial expansion and others suggesting matrix diagonalization or transformation techniques. No consensus is reached on a specific method or the correctness of the initial claims regarding the determinant.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the properties of the matrix \( A \) and the implications of using different proof techniques. The discussion also highlights the complexity of formalizing the proof without reaching a definitive conclusion.

alle.fabbri
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Hi,
can anyone give me an hint to proof the relation

det(I + x A) = 1 + x tr A + O(x^2)

thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Write out the general form of (I+xA). The determinant must be some polynomial in x, right? So, carefully pick out the constant- and linear-order terms of this polynomial by choosing the appropriate factors in the determinant.
 
Ben Niehoff said:
Write out the general form of (I+xA). The determinant must be some polynomial in x, right? So, carefully pick out the constant- and linear-order terms of this polynomial by choosing the appropriate factors in the determinant.

ok that's the idea behind...but what about some explicit calculations? Are them possible? I thought i can use the general determinant expansion in terms of the total antisymmetric tensor which, for a nxn matrix A must be something like

[tex] det A = \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{i_1, i_2, ... , i_n = 1}^{n} \epsilon_{i_1\;i_2\;...\;i_n} A_{1\;i_1} A_{2\;i_2} A_{3\;i_3} ... A_{n\;i_n}[/tex]

the expression of the fact that the determinant is the average of all possible products of the elements picked one per column keeping them in different rows, thanks to totally antisymmetric tensor.

Any idea to be a bit formal?
 
There should be no 1/n! in there. The determinant is the anti-symmetrized sum of all the products; not the average.

If you want to do the proof formally, the simplest way would be to diagonalize A. Or in general, bring A to upper-triangular form by a similarity transformation. Note that the identity matrix is invariant under similarity transformations. The determinant and trace are also invariant.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K