Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $A$ be a $m \times n$ matrix with entries from some field $F$. Define the determinant rank of $A$ to be the largest possible size of a nonzero minor, ie. the largest invertible square submatrix of $A$. It is true that the determinant rank is equal to the rank of a matrix, which we define to be the dimension of the row/column space.

It's not difficult to see that $\text{rank} \geq \text{determinant rank}$. If some submatrix of $A$ is invertible, then its columns/rows are linearly indepedent, which implies that the corresponding rows/columns of $A$ are also linearly indepedent.

Is there a nice proof for the converse?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 16 down vote accepted

If the matrix $A$ has rank $k$, then it has $k$ linearly independent lines. Those form an $k\times n$ submatrix, which of course also has rank $k$. But if it has rank $k$, then it has $k$ linearly independent columns. Those form a $k\times k$ submatrix of $A$, which of course also has rank $k$. But a $k\times k$ submatrix with rank $k$ is a full-rank square matrix, therefore invertible, thus is has a non-zero determinant. And therefore the determinant rank has to be at least $k$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice! Now that I see this proof, I can't believe I missed it.. – spin Aug 27 '12 at 15:33

Your Answer


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.