Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here is what our professor showed us in our linear algebra class to introduce the idea of determinants:

Suppose we have an $n$-dimensional vector space $V$. Then we can create a function from $V^n$ to $\mathbb{R}$ called $vol$ (for "volume") satisfying these properties:

$vol$ is multilinear
$vol$ is alternating (i.e. if any two of $v_1, \ldots, v_n$ are the same, then $vol(v_1, \ldots, v_n) = 0$)

From these two properties, we can see that if $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ is a basis of $V$, then the $vol$ function is completely defined by the value $vol(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$.

Thus if $T$ is a linear operator on $V$, the ratio:

$\dfrac{vol(Te_1, \ldots, Te_n)}{vol(e_1, \ldots, e_n)}$

is the same for any (multilinear and alternating) $vol$ function.

However, I am having trouble understanding why the ratio is also independent of the basis $e_1, \ldots, e_n$. This is what I am asking for help with. I can see that this invariance implies that intuitively, every $n$-parallelotope is stretched by the same amount by the operator $T$.

(Our professor then defined the determinant of $T$ as that ratio.)

share|improve this question
    
Show that any two bases can be reached from each other by row operations and look at what row operations do to the volume. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jan 16 '11 at 2:04
    
Adding one row to another does not change the volume, while multiplying a row by a scalar changes the volume by that scalar factor. So if we go from $e_i$'s to another basis, say $f_i's$, then the ratio $vol(f_1, \ldots, f_n)/vol(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ is the product of all the scalar multiplications. But I don't see why this is the same as $vol(Tf_1, \ldots, Tf_n)/vol(Te_1, \ldots, Te_n)$ –  Alan C Jan 16 '11 at 2:21
    
You are half way there. The point is that since $T$ is linear, it commutes with scalar multiplication. So if $f_1=\alpha e_1$ for a scalar $\alpha$, then $Tf_1 = \alpha Te_1$. –  Alex B. Jan 16 '11 at 5:10
    
Aha thanks! I wonder how I overlooked the linearity of $T$. Hm... but I'm also wondering if this could be done in a way similar to the Steinitz exchange lemma. Suppose we order the $e_i$'s and $f_i$'s so that for all $0 \leq k \leq n$, $f_1, \ldots, f_k, e_{k+1}, \ldots, e_n$ span $V$. Then we could go from $vol(Te_1, \ldots, Te_n)/vol(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ to $vol(Tf_1, \ldots, Tf_n)/vol(f_1, \ldots, f_n)$, replacing one vector at a time. (And the reason the ratio stays the same is because $T$ is linearity.) –  Alan C Jan 16 '11 at 15:28
    
In light of my comments on a previous, closely related question: in case you were wondering, I am not teaching linear algebra this semester! –  Pete L. Clark Feb 15 '11 at 16:48
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

First note that since $T$ is linear, $\mathrm{vol}_T(v_1, \dots, v_n) = \mathrm{vol} (T v_1 , \dots , T v_n )$ is also a multilinear alternating function.

So if you go from $e_1, \dots , e_n$ to a different basis, say, $b_1, \dots b_n$, then you can write the $b_i$ in terms of their coordinates with respect to $e_1, \dots , e_n$:

$$ b_1= \sum_{i=1}^n b_{i 1} \, e_i,\quad b_2= \sum_{i=1}^n b_{i 2} \, e_i,\quad\dots \quad b_n= \sum_{i=1}^n b_{i n} \, e_i. $$

And Leibniz's formula (which is a direct consequence of multinearity and alternating-ness), applied to both $\mathrm{vol}$ and $\mathrm{vol}_T$ tells us:

$$\mathrm{vol}(b_1 , \dots , b_n ) = \sum_{\sigma \in S_n} \text{sgn}(\sigma) \: b_{\sigma(1) 1} \cdots b_{\sigma(n) n} \cdot \mathrm{vol}(e_1, \dots , e_n)$$

$$\mathrm{vol} (T b_1 , \dots , T b_n ) = \sum_{\sigma \in S_n} \text{sgn}(\sigma) \: b_{\sigma(1) 1} \cdots b_{\sigma(n) n} \cdot \mathrm{vol}(T e_1, \dots , T e_n)$$

So if you take the ratio $\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{vol} (T b_1 , \dots , T b_n )}{\mathrm{vol} (b_1 , \dots , b_n )} $ everything else cancels out and you're left with $ \displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{vol} (T e_1 , \dots , T e_n )}{\mathrm{vol} (e_1 , \dots , e_n )}$ again.

Of course, for all of this, it is important that $\mathrm{vol} \neq 0$. That's probably an additional restriction your professor put on the $\mathrm{vol}$ function.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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