Why this property of the product of two matrices

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the product of a 2x5 matrix P and a 5x3 matrix B resulting in a 2x3 zero matrix, with both matrices containing integers. A specific matrix B is provided, which maintains the property that the determinants of P multiplied by its transpose and B multiplied by its transpose are equal, both yielding 7778. The conversation explores how to derive another matrix B that retains this determinant property, emphasizing that post-multiplying B by a unimodular matrix C will produce a new matrix D that also satisfies the condition. The participants clarify that the relationship is not coincidental, highlighting the associative property of matrix multiplication. Ultimately, the focus is on understanding and generating matrices that maintain the specified determinant relationship.
senmeis
Messages
75
Reaction score
2
Hello,

The product of a 2x5 matrix P and a 5x3 matrix B shall be a 2x3 zero matrix. P and B are all matrices of integers.

P = [6 2 -5 -6 1;3 6 1 -6 -5]

One possible B is [0 -4 0;3 0 0;-1 -1 3;2 -3 -2;1 1 3]

This solution B has a property: det(PPt) = det(BtB) = 7778

The question is: What does this property mean? How to get another B with this property?

Senmeis
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I really don't know how you got B or why you refer to it as a "solution". Solution to what problem? Just having the property that det(PPt) = det(BtB)?
 
Pb=0
 
Post-multiply B by any 3x3 matrix C, i.e., D=BC, and you'll have another 5x3 matrix D that satisfies PD=0. If C is unimodular (determinant = ±1), then det(D)=±det(B), so det(DTD)=det(BTB)=7778.

See if you can take this further to ensure that all elements of D are integers.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you are right, but I still don’t know if this property is by chance. More important, I can’t even get another B that fulfills this property.

Senmeis
 
No, it is not by chance. Matrix multiplication is associative: (PB)C = P(BC). If PB=0 then P(BC) must necessarily be zero as well.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K