Timeline for Computing a determinant involving roots of unity
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 3, 2019 at 20:26 | history | edited | T. Amdeberhan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1008 characters in body
|
Jun 24, 2017 at 22:24 | comment | added | efs | Of course. I should read more carefully the other answers before posting. Thanks for the response. (I was entertaining myself with this determinant in Mathematica while finishing some pending bureaucratic work in the computer.) | |
Jun 24, 2017 at 21:23 | history | edited | T. Amdeberhan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
Jun 24, 2017 at 19:08 | comment | added | GH from MO | Your first line should be corrected as $\det\Phi=\prod_{0\leq i<j < d} (\xi^j-\xi^i)$. Also, Zach Teitler is right: distinguishing between $\pm i$ is subtle here, and it is pretty much the same problem as evaluating the Gauss sum precisely (not only up to $\pm$ sign which is an easier task). The point is that $(\det\Phi)^2$ has two square-roots, and you need to pin down which one is $\det\Phi$. | |
Jun 24, 2017 at 17:55 | comment | added | Zach Teitler | You say $\det \Phi = (-1)^{\binom{d}{2}} \left( d^d (-1)^{\binom{d-1}{2}} \right)^{1/2} = (-1)^{\binom{d}{2}} d^{\frac{d}{2}} i^{\binom{d-1}{2}}$. Is it obvious that we get $i$ instead of $-i$ at the end? Or do we need something like the accepted answer's argument (pun intended)? | |
Jun 24, 2017 at 16:27 | history | answered | T. Amdeberhan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |