1
$\begingroup$

Is there a publication containing this obvious fact: For any real $T>0$, any natural $n$, any complex $c_1,\dots,c_n$, and any distinct complex $z_1,\dots,z_n$ such that $\sum_1^n c_k e^{tz_k}=0$ for all $t\in[0,T)$, we have $c_1=\dots=c_n=0$?

Somehow, I cannot find such a publication.

$\endgroup$
21
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Vandermonde matrix is nonsingular? $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2020 at 22:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ycart, Bernard (2013), "A case of mathematical eponymy: the Vandermonde determinant", Revue d'Histoire des Mathématiques, 13, arXiv:1204.4716 $\endgroup$
    – yarchik
    Commented May 15, 2020 at 22:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Publication includes textbooks by definition, so it should definitely appear in several of them... I searched Google books [linear independence exponentials] and immediately got this reference: books.google.fr/… $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented May 15, 2020 at 22:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I put this question on my final exam for linear algebra, and I got oodles of cool very different proofs. :-) $\endgroup$
    – Pat Devlin
    Commented May 16, 2020 at 0:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See Lemma 3.2 p. 92 in the book Differential Equations, Springer Verlag, 2016 by Viorel Barbu. The very elegant proof there is not the usual proof based on Wronskians. He proves a bit more, namely that the exponentials are linearly independent over the field of rational functions with complex coefficients. $\endgroup$ Commented May 16, 2020 at 9:16

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

I will recount the more general statement of linear independence of characters, given in Lang's Algebra book, and credited to Artin. Let $G$ be a group, and $K$ a field. Then distinct homomorphisms $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n: G \to K^\times$ are linearly independent.

Proof: Suppose not, and suppose we have a nontrivial linear relation

$$a_1 \phi_1 + \ldots + a_n \phi_n = 0,\qquad (1)$$

where $n$ is taken as small as possible. Clearly $n>1$ and $a_i \neq 0$ for all $i$. Because the $\phi_i$ are distinct, we can find an element $g \in G$ such that $\phi_1(g) \neq \phi_2(g)$. We have

$$a_1 \phi_1(gh) + a_2 \phi_2(gh) + \ldots + a_n \phi_n(gh) = 0$$

for all $h \in G$; by virtue of the $\phi_i$ being homomorphisms, this may be rewritten to say

$$a_1 \phi_1(g)\phi_1 + a_2 \phi_2(g)\phi_2 + \ldots + a_n \phi_n(g)\phi_n = 0, \qquad (2)$$

Dividing $(2)$ by $\phi_1(g)$ and then subtracting (1) from the result, we arrive at a linear relation

$$\left(a_2 \frac{\phi_2(g)}{\phi_1(g)} - a_2\right) \phi_2 + \ldots = 0$$

which has fewer than $n$ summands and is nontrivial by choice of $g$, contradiction. $\Box$

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ K.Conrad quotes E. Artin's "Galois theory" (1948). $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented May 17, 2020 at 16:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is very nice, cleaner than the differentiation. Also, (1) does not have to be assumed to hold over all $G$. At least in the case when $G=\mathbb R$, it is enough to assume that (1) holds over a neighborhood of $0$ -- which is what I need. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2020 at 16:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right, I'm downvoted because why? This was a reference request. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2020 at 19:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble : I don't see a reason for the downvote. I upvoted your answer. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2020 at 20:31
1
$\begingroup$

Let $y_k(t)=e^{tz_k}$. Proving by contradiction, suppose that they are linearly dependent, that is $$\sum_{k=1}^nc_ky_k\equiv 0.$$ Differentiating $n-1$ times we obtain a homogeneous system of linear equations with respect to $c_k$. To have a non-trivial solution, this system must have non-zero determinant. The determinant is: $$\left|\begin{array}{cccc}y_1&y_2&\ldots& y_n\\ y_1^\prime& y_2^\prime&\ldots&y_n^\prime\\ \ldots&\ldots&\ldots&\ldots\\ y_1^{(n-1)}& y_2^{(n-1)}&\ldots& y_n^{(n-1)}\end{array}\right|=A(t) \left|\begin{array}{cccc}1&1&\ldots&1\\ z_1&z_2&\ldots& z_n\\ \ldots&\ldots&\ldots&\ldots\\ z_1^{n-1}&z_2^{n-1}&\ldots&z_n^{n-1}\end{array}\right|,$$ where $A(t)=e^{t(z_1+\ldots+z_n)}\neq 0$. The determinant in the right hand side is easy to compute. Consider it as a polynomial with respect to, $z_n$. It is evidently of degree $n-1$ and has $n-1$ roots at $z_1,\ldots,z_{n-1}$. Therefore it is of the corm $$C(z_1,\ldots,z_{n-1})(z_n-z_1)\ldots(z_n-z_{n-1}).$$ Looking at the top degree term, we conclude that $C$ is a similar polynomial. So by induction our determinant is $$\prod_{i<k}(z_i-z_k).$$ this is never zero, since $z_k$ are distinct.

References. Polya Szego, Problems and theorems of analysis, vol II, Part 7, "Determinants and quadratic forms''. Computation of the Vandermonde determinant is problem 2. The Wronskian criterion of linear independence is problem 60.

Remark. Vandermondes's determinant is computed in ANY undergraduate textbook of linear algebra, as a first example of determinant. For example, I teach linear algebra with the textbook of Strang, and differential equations with the textbook of Boyce and di Prima. Both of them have Vandermonde determinant.

Remark 2. Undergraduate textbooks are rarely freely available online. If you insist on a free online reference, you may refer on the proof above.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ In my experience, in 99% of the claimed applications of the Vandermonde determinant, one does not actually need the determinant, but only on the fact that the Vandermonde matrix is invertible, and this can be proved directly with a simpler argument: if a row vector is in the left kernel of this matrix, then its entries form the coefficients of a degree-$(n-1)$ polynomial with $n$ distinct zeros. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2020 at 14:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Federico Poloni: I agree with this remark. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2020 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .