2
$\begingroup$

MathWorld presents the following two versions of Sylvester's determinant identity, relating to an $n\times n$ matrix $\mathbb{A}$:

First: $$ |\mathbb{A}||A_{r\,s,p\,q}| = |A_{r,p}||A_{s,q}| - |A_{r,q}| |A_{s,p}| $$

where $r$ and $s$ ($p$ and $q$) are sets that indicate which rows (columns) of $\mathbb{A}$ are to be deleted (correcting MathWorld's typo).

Second:
$$ |\mathbb{A}|\left[ a_{k\,k}^{(k-1)}\right]^{n-k-1} = \left| \begin{matrix} a_{k+1\, k+1}^{(k)} & \cdots & a_{k+1\, n}^{(k)} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ a_{n\, k+1}^{(k)} & \cdots & a_{n\, n}^{(k)} \\ \end{matrix}\right| $$

where

$$ a_{i\, j}^{(k)} = \left| \begin{matrix} a_{11} & \cdots & a_{1\,k} & a_{1 \, j} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots& \vdots \\ a_{k\ 1} & \cdots & a_{k\,k}& a_{k\, j} \\ a_{i\ 1} & \cdots & a_{i\, k} & a_{i\, j} \\ \end{matrix} \right| $$

for $k<i$, $j \leq n$.

Would anyone help me prove that these two versions are indeed equivalent.

Note: As has been pointed our below, MathWorld's claim is obviously (using a counterexample) incorrect; the second version implies only a special case (when r,s,p,q are single numbers) of the first 'version'.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you think they should be equivalent? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2020 at 17:51

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

For the special case that $r,s,p,q$ are single elements, it is shown in these notes (page 7) how the first identity (known as the Desnanot-Jacobi identity) follows from the second identity.

Apply the second identity to the matrix

we thus arrive at the first identity, illustrated graphically as

source


Update: Since I could not find the first identity in the literature, for the more general case when $r,s,p,q$ each contain more than a single element, I tried to check it for an example. I took $n=6$, $r=1,2$, $s=5,6$, $p=1,2$, $q=5,6$. For the $6\times 6$ matrix $A$ I took $$A=\left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\ 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\ 2 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 2 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 2 \\ \end{array} \right)$$ The left-hand-side of the first identity is 0,
$\det A \det \left( \begin{array}{cc} 2 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right) = 24\cdot 0 = 0$,
but for the right-hand-side I find a nonzero answer:

$$ \det \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 \\ 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right) \det \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\ 2 & 1 & 0 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & 2 & 2 \\ \end{array} \right) - \det \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 \\ 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 2 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right) \det \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\ \end{array} \right)=$$ $$\qquad\qquad= (-4) \cdot 4 - (-2)\cdot (-2)=-20\neq 0$$

Incidentally, I did find a determinantal identity of a somewhat similar form in Tao's blog (last equation, Karlin's identity). But it is not quite of the form of the first identity in the OP.

So unless I have made a mistake, my conclusion is that the first identity in the OP only holds when $r,s,p,q$ are single elements, but not more generally.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for a neat (special-case) proof. How would one proceed with a fully general proof? Now, I would be quite happy to see how the special case of FIRST version (with r, s, p, q each being a single row/column) implies the more general (r,s,p,q being sets) case. Or is it better to ask that as a separate question? $\endgroup$
    – Honza
    Commented Aug 28, 2020 at 21:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks again. I believe that you are correct, which implies that MathWorld is making a false statement - what an incredible carelessness for such a popular and well respected source. This also means that the second formulation implies the special case (one row, one column) of the first one (as you have shown), but their equivalence is then out of the question. $\endgroup$
    – Honza
    Commented Aug 29, 2020 at 19:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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