Say $A$ and $B$ are symmetric, positive definite matrices. I've proved that

$$\det(A+B) \ge \det(A) + \det(B)$$

in the case that $A$ and $B$ are two dimensional. Is this true in general for $n$-dimensional matrices? Is the following even true?

$$\det(A+B) \ge \det(A)$$

This would also be enough. Thanks.

  • 1
    @RodrigodeAzavedo There is a geometric interpretation for this fact: If A and B are positive invertible matrices with $0<A<B$ then $Det A \leq Det B$. We interpret $A,B$ as inner products(Positive symmetric 2-tensores). Then there is a linear map $T$ with $T^*(B)=A)$ this means that T is metric decreasing. But every metric decreasing is a volum decreasing map. Since the n dimensional "Volume" is made by product of 1 dimensional length. – Ali Taghavi Jun 30 at 10:37
up vote 57 down vote accepted

The inequality $$\det(A+B)\geq \det A +\det B$$ is implied by the Minkowski determinant theorem $$(\det(A+B))^{1/n}\geq (\det A)^{1/n}+(\det B)^{1/n}$$ which holds true for any non-negative $n\times n$ Hermitian matrices $A$ and $B$. The latter inequality is equivalent to the fact that the function $A\mapsto(\det A )^{1/n}$ is concave on the set of $n\times n$ non-negative Hermitian matrices (see e.g., A Survey of Matrix Theory and Matrix Inequalities by Marcus and Minc, Dover, 1992, P. 115 and also the previous MO thread).

  • 1
    looks nice, but isn't it somewhat overkill to invoke the Minkowski theorem here? – Suvrit May 19 '11 at 17:05
  • 35
    This is really misleading since it makes the question look like complicated, while is almost obvious that $\det(A+B) = \det(A) \det(1+A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}) \geq \det(A) (1+\det(A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2})) = \det(A) + \det(B)$. In the second step, it is just used that $\prod_i (1+ \mu_i) \geq 1 + \prod_i \mu_i$, where $\mu_i$ are the eigenvalues of $A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}$. – Andreas Thom Jun 28 '14 at 20:02
  • 7
    I'm going to disagree with @Suvrit and Andreas and say that the Minkowski theorem should be discussed. The reason is that it is a tighter bound that respects the dimensionality, and in particular is saturated when $A=B$ for any $n$. The OP's question is just an awkwardly weakened version of Minkowski. – Jess Riedel May 22 '15 at 20:10
  • 2
    In fact, one can show a bit more with @AndreasThom idea: if $A$ is positive definite and $B$ is positive semidefinite and nonzero then $\det(A+B)>\det(A)+\det(B)$ (strict inequality), since $A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}$ is then nonzero positive semidefinite, hence with nonnegative eigenvalues and not all 0, and thus $\prod_i(1+\mu_i)\geq 1+\sum_i\mu_i+\prod_i\mu_i>1+\prod_i\mu_i$. – Jose Brox Oct 10 '17 at 18:44
  • 1
    @F.Webber: It seems one has equality if and only if ${\rm rk}(A-B) \leq 1$. – Andreas Thom Apr 13 at 7:55

We have $((A+B)x,x)\ge (Ax,x)$. It then follows from the variational characterization of eigenvalues (min-max theorem) that the eigenvalues of $A+B$ are greater than or equal to those of $A$. This implies $det(A+B)\ge det(A)$.

Yet another way to see this is to note that $A = \overline{Q}^{t}Q$ for some invertible matrix $Q$. Then ${\rm det}(A+B) = |{\rm det}(Q)|^{2}{\rm det}{( I + (\overline{Q}^{-1}})^{t}BQ^{-1})$.` Now $(\overline{Q}^{-1})^{t}BQ^{-1}$ is Hermitian, and positive definite. It suffices to prove that if $X$ is positive definite and Hermitian, then ${\rm det}(I+X) \geq (1 + {\rm det}X)$. We may conjugate $X$ by a unitary matrix $U$ and assume that $X$ is diagonal. Let the eigenvalues of $X$ be $\lambda_{1},\ldots, \lambda_{n}$, (allowing repetitions). Then ${\rm det}(I+X) = \prod_{i=1}^{n}(1 + \lambda_{i}) \geq 1 + \prod_{i=1}^{n} \lambda_{i} = 1 + {\rm det}X.$ Such an argument appears in some proofs by R. Brauer, though I do not know whether it originates with him.

Later edit: Incidentally, I think that with the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality and a slightly more careful analysis, you can see by this approach that for $X$ as above, you do have ${\rm det}(I+X) \geq (1 +({\rm det}X)^{1/n})^{n}$ (a special case of the inequality of Minkowski mentioned in the accepted answer, but enough to prove the general case by an argument similar to that above). For set $d = {\rm det}X$. Let $s_{m}(\lambda_{1},\ldots ,\lambda_{n})$ denote the $m$-th elementary symmetric function evaluated at the eigenvalues. Using the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality yields that $s_{m}(\lambda_{1},\ldots ,\lambda_{n}) \geq \left( \begin{array}{clcr} n\\m \end{array} \right)d^{m/n}$, so we obtain ${\rm det}(I+X) \geq (1+d^{1/n})^{n}.$

Here is yet another overkill, but hopefully not too bad a way to prove this inequality.

We have the following proof sketch.

$$\begin{eqnarray} x^T(A+B)x &\ge& x^TAx\quad\forall x\\\\ -x^T(A+B)x &\le& -x^TAx\\\\ \exp(-x^T(A+B)x) &\le& \exp(-x^TAx)\\\\ \int\exp(-x^T(A+B)x)dx &\le& \int\exp(-x^TAx)dx\\\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det(A+B)}} &\le& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det(A)}}\\\\ \det(A+B) &\ge& \det(A) \end{eqnarray} $$

The only fancy thing that happened is in the second last line, where I used the formula for the Gaussian integral (see multivariate section)

Update. To expand upon my comment below, to note that the above idea actually with a little bit more care actually yields a proof of the Minkowski determinant inequality, by equivalently establishing log-concavity of the determinant. The key point to observe is \begin{eqnarray} \exp(-x^T((1-\lambda)A+\lambda)x) &=& [\exp(-x^TAx)]^{1-\lambda}[\exp(-x^TBx)]^\lambda\\\\ \int\exp(-x^T((1-\lambda)A+\lambda)x)dx &=& \int [\exp(-x^TAx)]^{1-\lambda}[\exp(-x^TBx)]^\lambda\ dx\\\\ &\stackrel{\text{Hölder}}{\le}& \left(\int\exp(-x^TAx)dx \right)^{1-\lambda}\left(\int \exp(-x^TBx)dx \right)^\lambda. \end{eqnarray} Now invoke the Gaussian integral as above to conclude \begin{equation*} \det((1-\lambda)A+\lambda B) \ge \det(A)^{1-\lambda}\det(B)^\lambda, \end{equation*} from which we can easily conclude $\det(A+B)^{1/n} \ge \det(A)^{1/n}+\det(B)^{1/n}$.

  • This is very clever. I wonder if such reasoning can also prove the Minkowski determinant theorem mentioned above... – AlexArvanitakis Jun 30 at 22:35
  • 3
    @AlexArvanitakis indeed the same reasoning as above with a tiny bit of care can be used to prove the inequality $\det((1-\lambda)A+\lambda B) \ge \det(A)^{1-\lambda}\det(B)^\lambda$, which is actually equivalent to Minkowski's determinant inequality (easy to verify using suitably scaled versions of the matrices $A$ and $B$) – Suvrit Jul 1 at 22:07

Let me add some more. If $A, B, C$ are positive semidefinite, then $$\det (A+B+C)+\det C\ge \det (A+C)+\det (B+C). \quad (\star)$$

When $C=0$, this reduces to OP's question.

A remarkable extension of ($\star$) were recently obtained by V. Paksoy, R. Turkmen, F. Zhang [ Electron. J. Linear Algebra 27 (2014) 332-341], which says that the determinant functional can be replaced by any generalized matrix function.

The determinant of a positive definite matrix $G$ is proportional to $(1/\hbox{Volume}(\mathcal B(G)))^2$ where $\mathcal B(G)$ denotes the unit ball with respect to the metric defined by $G$. If $A$ and $B$ are positive definite then the volume of $\mathcal B(A+B)$ is smaller than the volume of $\mathcal B(A)$ or $\mathcal B(B)$.

  • 2
    It's worth noting that this is secretly the same as Suvrit's answer. – Mark Meckes May 20 '11 at 14:20
  • 3
    Not really: You don't need exponentials for proving that $\det(G)$ is proportional to $1/\hbox{Volume}(G)^2$ : It is enough to stare at an orthogonal basis formed of eigenvectors for $G$. In this sense this proof is more elementary. – Roland Bacher May 25 '11 at 7:18
  • Fair enough.$ $ – Mark Meckes May 29 '11 at 0:49

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.