2
$\begingroup$

Does there exist an explicit criterion (or a good sufficient condition) for proving that a Vandemonde matrix: $$A(x_1,\dots,x_n):=\left[ \begin{array}{llll}1 & x_1 &\dots& x_1^{n-1}\\ 1 & x_2 &\dots& x_2^{n-1}\\&&\vdots&\\ 1& x_n &\dots& x_n^{n-1}\end{array}\right]$$ has nonzero permanent? ($x_1,\dots,x_n$ are complex numbers) I'm especially interested in the case where $x_i$'s are roots of unity.

Added. Here is an explicit conjecture I want to prove:

If $x_1,\dots,x_n$ are in $\mu_N$ (not necessarily different) and $n$ is coprime to $N$ then $A(x_1,\dots,x_n)\neq 0$.

The conjecture is trivially true when $N$ is a prime and $n<N$, since $A(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ is a sum of $n!$, $N$th roots of unity and $N$ dose not divide $n!$.

Edit. I found counterexamples for the above conjecture for a prime $N$ and every $n>N$ s.t. $N\nmid (n+1)$. Explicitly $A(x_1,\dots,x_n)=0$ when all of $x_i$'s are 1 except (1 + $n$ mod $N$) of them which are equal to a primitive $N$th root of unity.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Say, if $N=pq$ for primes $p,q$, could not it appear that $A$ is linear combination of (sum of $p$-roots of 1) and (sum of $q$-roots of 1)? If not, what is the reason? This specific question is rather combinatorial. $\endgroup$ Jun 11, 2015 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov Good question! in fact I didn't assumed that $x_i$'s generate $\mu_N$ and so the condition $n<N$ was redundant and I removed it. So in particular you can ask your question when all of $x_i$'s are $p$-roots of 1 and $p$ dose not divide $n$. $\endgroup$
    – Mostafa
    Jun 11, 2015 at 9:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If this is of any help, for each fixed $n$ there is an effective procedure to determine all root of unity solutions to $A(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = 0$, valid for an arbitrary polynomial $A$. See, for example, Bombieri and Zannier's paper "Algebraic points on subvarieties of $\mathbb{G}_m^n$." $\endgroup$ Jun 11, 2015 at 13:21

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

If the $x_i$ are pairwise different roots of unity of odd order (does this case suffice for your application?) then you can show that the permanent is non-zero by arguing that its norm to $\mathbb{Z}$ has to be an odd rational integer.

More precisely, suppose all $x_i \in \mu_N$ different, where the level $N$ is odd, and fix one of the prime ideal divisors $\mathfrak{p}$ of $2$ for $\mathbb{Z}(\mu_N)$. (This choice may be avoided by applying the norm to $\mathbb{Z}$.) Since $\prod_{\zeta \in \mu_N \setminus \{1\}} (1-\zeta) = N \equiv 1 \mod{2}$, no non-zero difference of $\mu_N$ elements is in $\mathfrak{p}$, and hence the Vandermonde determinant $V(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = \prod_{i < j}(x_i-x_j) \notin \mathfrak{p}$. As the permanent $A(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \equiv V(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \mod{\mathfrak{p}}$, it must be non-zero.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vesselin Very nice argument! In fact this was one of the main special cases I considered. Thank you very much! $\endgroup$
    – Mostafa
    Jun 10, 2015 at 19:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.