Why Is My Determinant Calculation Using Upper Triangular Form Incorrect?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dethrone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinant
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the determinant of a specific matrix using upper triangular form. Participants explore the implications of row operations on the determinant and the correct application of the determinant formula for upper triangular matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a matrix and their calculation of the determinant using upper triangular form, arriving at a value of 1/2.
  • The same participant questions the validity of their result, noting a discrepancy with the known determinant of 2.
  • Another participant suggests that the determinant is not preserved by all row operations, specifically highlighting the need to track the effects of row operations on the determinant value.
  • A further contribution emphasizes that while some row operations do not change the determinant, others do, and suggests a method for keeping track of these changes during row reduction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the application of row operations affects the determinant, but there is no consensus on the specific implications for the original calculation presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the error in the initial determinant calculation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the need for clarity on how different row operations affect the determinant and the importance of tracking these operations throughout the row reduction process. The discussion does not resolve the specific steps that led to the incorrect determinant calculation.

Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
I am trying to find the determinant of the following via upper triangular form:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}-1 & -1 & 1 & 0 \\ 2 & 1 & 1 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\ 1 & 3 & -1 & 2 \end{array}\right]$$Using row reduction to bring it to upper triangular matrix:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}-1 & -1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 3 & 3 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1/2 \end{array}\right]$$Proposition from my professor's notes (modified a bit as we know the determinant exists and is unique):

Let $\text{det}_n: \Bbb{R}^{nn}\longmapsto\Bbb{R}$ be the determinant function and $U=[u_{ij}]\in\Bbb{R}^{nn}$ by an upper-triangular matrix. Then
$$\text{det}_n(U)=\prod_{k=1}^nu_{kk}$$.

Applying this formula I get $(-1)(-1)(1)(1/2)=1/2$ as my determinant, whereas the actual determinant is $2$. Why is this wrong? Furthermore, I can see that I can multiply the last row by any constant, therefore, the determinant can really be any real number. What is wrong with my application of the proposition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
On second though, could this be the reason:

Of the three elementary row operations, only the third type where you multiply one row by a scalar and add it to another row doesn't change the determinant value. In other words, I should either keep track of the row operations I use, or avoid the other two row operations altogether?
 
That's right, the determinant is not necessarily preserved by row operations. You should keep track of the determinant as you work through the row reduction, then quickly calculate the determinant of the upper-triangular matrix, and then work backwards to find the determinant of the original matrix. It's still fast and easy, especially since row reductions can only either negate or multiply the determinant by a constant factor, so the correction factor is always of the form $(-1)^n s$ where $n$ is the number of times you swap rows and $s$ is the product of all scalar row multiplications you perform (that's multiplying a row by a scalar, not adding a multiple of a row to another, since that does not affect the determinant).
 
Hi Bacterius,

Thanks very much for clearing this up for me, as always! :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K