$\DeclareMathOperator\cof{cof}$If we suppose that a finite family (greater than 3) of $3\times3$ symmetric matrices $A_i$ and positive reals $a_i$ such that $\sum_ia_i=1$ satisfies $\cof(\sum_i a_i A_i)=\sum_ia_i\cof A_i$, does this imply that the same happens for determinant? Is it true that $\det(\sum_i a_i A_i)=\sum_ia_i\det A_i$? If not, what is a counterexample?
1 Answer
Here's a counterexample to the OP's literal question: Consider the following four symmetric (in fact, diagonal) $3$-by-$3$ matrices: $A_1 = \mathrm{diag}(0,0,0)$, $A_2 = \mathrm{diag}(\frac12,3,3)$, $A_3 = \mathrm{diag}(0,11,1)$, $A_4 = \mathrm{diag}(1,6,0)$, and let $a_1=a_2=a_3=a_4=\frac14$. Then the cofactor equation holds, but the determinant equation does not.
Meanwhile, if, instead one asks that the symmetric matrices $A_i$ have the property that the cofactor equation holds for all choices of $a_i$ for which $\sum_i a_i = 1$ and $a_i>0$, then, indeed, the determinant equation holds also for all choices of $a_i$ for which $\sum_i a_i = 1$ and $a_i>0$.
To see this, note first that the cofactor function on $3$-by-$3$ matrices $A\mapsto \mathrm{cof}(A)$ is a quadratic function (i.e., the mapping $\beta(A,B) = \mathrm{cof}(A+B) - \mathrm{cof}(A)-\mathrm{cof}(B)$ is (symmetric and) bilinear in its arguments. In particular, it is homogeneous of degre $2$.
Almost by definition, $\mathrm{cof}(A)=0$ if and only if $A$ has rank at most $1$, i.e. $A = pq^\mathsf{T}$ for some column vectors $p$ and $q$. In particular, when $A$ is also symmetric, it must be a multiple of $pp^\mathsf{T}$ for some column vector $p$.
Now, suppose that one has $3$-by-$3$ matrices $A_1,\ldots, A_n$ such that $\mathrm{cof}(a_1\,A_1 + \cdots + a_n\,A_n) = a_1\,\mathrm{cof}(A_1)+\cdots+a_n\,\mathrm{cof}(A_n)$ for all $a_i>0$ with $a_1+\cdots+a_n=1$. Writing $a_i = b_i/(b_1+\cdots+b_n)$ for $b_i>0$, substituting and clearing denominators, one sees that $$ \mathrm{cof}(b_1\,A_1 {+} \cdots {+} b_n\,A_n) = (b_1{+}\cdots{+}b_n)\bigl(b_1\,\mathrm{cof}(A_1)+\cdots+b_n\,\mathrm{cof}(A_n)\bigr) $$ for all $b_i>0$. Since both sides of this equation are quadratic polynomials in the $b_i$, it follows that this equation must hold for all $b_i$, not just when the $b_i$ are positive. In particular, we must have $$ \mathrm{cof}(b_1\,A_1 {+} \cdots {+} b_n\,A_n)=0 $$ when $b_1+\cdots+b_n=0$. In particular, $\mathrm{cof}(A_i-A_j) = 0$ for all $i$ and $j$, so that $A_i-A_j$ has rank at most $1$. Moreover, $$ \mathrm{cof}\bigl((A_i{-}A_j)- (A_k{-}A_l)\bigr)=0 $$ for all $i$, $j$, $k$ and $l$. It follows easily that there must be a column vector $p$ and constants $c_i$ such that $A_i = A_0 + c_i\,pp^\mathsf{T}$, where $A_0$ is the average of the $A_i$ for $1\le i\le n$ and $c_1+\cdots+c_n=0$. Conversely, for $A_i$ of this form, we have $$ \mathrm{cof}(A_i) = \mathrm{cof}(A_0) + c_i\,\beta(A_0,pp^\mathsf{T}), $$ and the equation $$ \mathrm{cof}(a_1\,A_1 + \cdots + a_n\,A_n) = a_1\,\mathrm{cof}(A_1)+\cdots+a_n\,\mathrm{cof}(A_n) $$ for $a_1+\cdots+a_n=1$ follows immediately from these formulae. Moreover, one now easily checks that $$ \det(A_i) = \det(A_0) + c_i\gamma(A_0,A_0,pp^\mathsf{T}) $$ where $\gamma$ is a certain trilinear function on matrices, and the desired determinant identity $$ \mathrm{det}(a_1\,A_1 + \cdots + a_n\,A_n) = a_1\,\mathrm{det}(A_1)+\cdots+a_n\,\mathrm{det}(A_n) $$ for $a_1+\cdots+a_n=1$ follows immediately from these formulae.
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you very much, in fact your counter example is well performed. Thanks again! $\endgroup$– YacineCommented Oct 26, 2022 at 12:21
-
$\begingroup$ @Yacine: If you are satisfied wiith my answer, then you should probably accept it so that it will not keep coming up on the front page. If you are not satisfied, then you should let me know what kind of information would improve the answer. Personally, I think that just the counterexample alone is not as interesting as the positive answer to the more restrictive question. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 3, 2022 at 11:59
$$
. Note the difference between \sigma_i a_i=1 and $\sigma_i a_i=1$$\sigma_i a_i=1$
. But actually please use\sum
for sums instead of\sigma
(or rather\Sigma
, which is what you probably meant); compare, for example, $\Sigma_i a_i=1$\Sigma_i a_i=1
to $\sum_i a_i=1$\sum_i a_i=1
, and especially $\displaystyle\Sigma_i a_i=1$\displaystyle\Sigma_i a_i=1
to $\displaystyle\sum_i a_i=1$\displaystyle\sum_i a_i=1
. I have edited accordingly. $\endgroup$