Skip to main content
18 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 22, 2011 at 4:27 answer added Will Orrick timeline score: 2
Dec 8, 2011 at 9:41 comment added Roland Bacher Kevin: Thank you for these precisions.
Dec 7, 2011 at 21:09 comment added Kevin P. Costello Roland: Sorry for being misleading by giving rationals...the maximum is only near that multiset, not exactly there (I had initially only searched in a mesh around that point, and didn't find any larger values). If you assume that (1) The maximum really occurs where there's five $1$s and a $−1$ and (2) that at the maximum the same two permutations have minimum determinant as in the $(0.25,−0.25,−0.64)$ case, you can solve explicitly for the maximum minimum determinant, getting that it occurs at $(2−\sqrt(5),\sqrt(5)−2,\frac{1−\sqrt{5}}{2})$ and has value $5 \sqrt{5} -11 \approx 0.1803$.
Dec 7, 2011 at 15:52 comment added Roland Bacher @Kevin P. Costello: Are you sure that you get a local maximum for your multiset? It is obvious that local maxima consist of algebraic numbers but it would be somwhat surprising that there are rational solutions.
Dec 6, 2011 at 22:52 comment added GH from MO @Tony: Thanks for the correction. I will delete my comment.
Dec 6, 2011 at 22:38 answer added Gerhard Paseman timeline score: 0
Dec 6, 2011 at 11:13 comment added Tony Huynh By my previous comment we have the $\epsilon$-improvement that $a(n)$ is strictly less than $n^{n/2}$ for $n \geq 3$ since $det(A)=n^{n/2}$ if and only if $A$ is a Hadamard matrix.
Dec 6, 2011 at 7:36 comment added Tony Huynh @GH: I don't think Hadamard's Conjecture is relevant here since we have to take the minimum determinant over all matrices with entries in $S$. Since each entry of a Hadamard matrix is 1 or -1, by rearranging the entries, we clearly get a zero determinant for $n \geq 4$, so this definitely won't be where the maximum occurs.
Dec 6, 2011 at 7:17 comment added Kevin P. Costello I tried doing a computer search, and there seems to be a local maximum for the $n=3$ case near $\{1,1,1,1,1,1/4, -1/4, -16/25, -1\}$, where the minimum determinant has value $9/50$. I don't really see any compelling explanation for those values though.
Dec 6, 2011 at 7:09 history edited Roland Bacher CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Dec 6, 2011 at 6:59 comment added Roland Bacher Gerry Myerson, thank you. I have corrected this.
Dec 6, 2011 at 6:58 history edited Roland Bacher CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 5 characters in body
Dec 5, 2011 at 22:39 comment added Gerry Myerson I think matrices have entries, not coefficients.
Dec 5, 2011 at 22:23 comment added Gerhard Paseman Further, there was a sci.math post a few years back by Hugo Pfoertner on looking at matrices with entries in 1,2,...,n^2, and looking at variations of the determinant function when n=3. I think his intuition on this problem is worth something. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.12.05
Dec 5, 2011 at 22:15 comment added Gerhard Paseman The math just rendered, and I see I have misread the question. I retract the above two comments, although you may find them useful. I conjecture a(n) near 0 for n larger than 2. Gerhard "These Are Not Binary Matrices" Paseman, 2011.12.05
Dec 5, 2011 at 21:42 comment added Gerhard Paseman And a(3) will be 4, a(4) will be 16, a(5) will be 48, and m(n) will be 0 or -a(n) when n is larger than 2, depending on whether you use absolute values or not. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.12.05
Dec 5, 2011 at 21:37 comment added Gerhard Paseman This will likely be closed as a duplicate question. Will Orrick's maxdet site has info for n not divisible by 4. Gerhard "Ask Me About Binary Matrices" Paseman, 2011.12.05
Dec 5, 2011 at 18:42 history asked Roland Bacher CC BY-SA 3.0