6
$\begingroup$

I am wondering how to show that the following matrix has trivial kernel: $$\begin{bmatrix} 1&1&1&1&1&1 \\ s_1&s_2&s_3&s_4&s_5&s_6 \\ s_1^2&s_2^2&s_3^2&s_4^2&s_5^2&s_6^2 \\ s_1^3&s_2^3&s_3^3&s_4^3&s_5^3&s_6^3 \\ e^{s_1}s_1^3&e^{s_2}s_2^3&e^{s_3}s_3^3&e^{s_4}s_4^3&e^{s_5}s_5^3&e^{s_6}s_6^3 \\ e^{s_1}s_1^4&e^{s_2}s_2^4&e^{s_3}s_3^4&e^{s_4}s_4^4&e^{s_5}s_5^4&e^{s_6}s_6^4 \\ e^{s_1}s_1^5&e^{s_2}s_2^5&e^{s_3}s_3^5&e^{s_4}s_4^5&e^{s_5}s_5^5&e^{s_6}s_6^5 \end{bmatrix}$$ where $\zeta,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$, and $s_i \in \mathbb{C}$ are the roots of the polynomial $\zeta ^2 s^6-s^4+\lambda ^2=0$, which are all non-zero and distinct.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you can use linear independence of monomials. $x^0,x^1,x^2,\cdots$ are all linearly independent. $\endgroup$ – mathreadler May 18 '16 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ "The roots are all non-zero" ? But $s=0$ is a root of $\zeta ^2 s^6-s^4+\lambda ^2s=0$, is it not ? Your question is unclear $\endgroup$ – Ewan Delanoy May 21 '16 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, in the polynomial expression there was a typo. corrected $\endgroup$ – Sara Winslet May 21 '16 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ Is there anything to say about $\zeta$ and $\lambda$? Are they complex? $\endgroup$ – Alex M. May 21 '16 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex M. No, they have real non-zero values $\endgroup$ – Sara Winslet May 21 '16 at 22:08
5
+25
$\begingroup$

Assuming that $\zeta,\lambda\in\color{red}{\mathbb{Q}}$, it is a consequence of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem.

The existence of a non-zero vector $(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6,a_7)$ in the null-space of $M^T$ would imply the vanishing of $$ f(z)=a_1+a_2 z+a_3 z^2+ a_4 z^3+ z^3 \color{red}{e^{z}}\left(a_5+a_6 z+a_7 z^2\right) $$ at every root of $\zeta^2 z^6-z^4 +\lambda^2$, i.e. over the set $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4,s_5,s_6\}$. However, assuming that $s_1,s_2,s_3$ are linearly independent, $e^{s_1},e^{s_2},e^{s_3}$ are algebraically independent, hence that cannot happen and $M$ has to be an invertible matrix.


We may also replace the initial assumption $\zeta,\lambda\in{\mathbb{Q}}$ with "$\zeta,\lambda$ are two algebraic numbers over $\mathbb{Q}$" and the argument proving $\det(M)\neq 0$ is more or less the same. Moreover, $\det(M)$ is a continuous function of $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4,s_5,s_6\}$ and every $s_i$ is a continuous function of $\zeta,\lambda$, so $\det(M)$ is a continuous function of $(\zeta,\lambda)\in\mathbb{R}^2$, non-vanishing over $\mathbb{Q}^2$. However, that is not enough for stating $\det(M)\neq 0$ for any $(\zeta,\lambda)\in\mathbb{R}^2$, since such a determinant may vanish over a set of isolated points $(\zeta,\lambda)$ having a trascendental coordinate. In the general case, I fear that some lower bound on $\left|\det M\right|$ (or, probably better to handle, $\det(MM^T)$) is required, but luckily enough it is not out of reach, since we may write every $s_i$ as an explicit function of $\zeta$ and $\lambda$ through the cubic formula.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ First of all, thank you for answering this question. I read through your answer a couple of times, I would like to point out some comments on your answer. Firstly, I was confused about taking determinant and talking about invertibility of a non-square matrix denoted by $M$. Secondly, coefficients $(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6,a_7)$ are not necessarily algebraic numbers; we have the flexibility to pick them up from anywhere on real line. Hence, I am afraid that Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem is not applied properly. $\endgroup$ – Sara Winslet May 27 '16 at 3:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thirdly, is it really a reasonable assumption that $s_1, s_2, s_3$ are all linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, I am wondering how to say that the roots of a polynomial with rational coefficients are linearly independent? what if some roots are rationals distinct numbers. $\endgroup$ – Sara Winslet May 27 '16 at 3:19
1
$\begingroup$

I think that the problem is ill-posed.

In the sequel, we assume that the $(s_i)$ are non-zero real numbers. Let $A$ be the considered matrix and $B$ be the matrix deduced from $A$ by removing its first row. If there are $i\not=j$ s.t. $s_i=s_j$, then $rank(A)<6$. If the $(s_j)$ are distinct, then is $rank(A)=6$ true ? I think that the answer is yes. It suffices to show that if the $(s_j)$ are distinct, then $\det(B)\not= 0$.

Numerical experiments seems (at least to me) to "show" that the previous result is true. Proceed as follows: give random distinct values to $(s_i)_{i\geq 2}$. Then plot the graph of the function $f$, where $\det(B)=f(s_1)$. I obtain always only the $5$ solutions $s_1=s_2,\cdots,s_6$.

EDIT. I did not see that the $(s_i)$ are in fact complex numbers. I don't know if the proposed result could stand on complex numbers!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. This is exactly what I started with, every numerical computation agrees that the kernel of the matrix is trivial; however, it should be proved analytically. There is also an interesting fact, I proved that the matrix formed by deleting the fourth row has vanishing determinant for some $\lambda$'s belong to a specific infinite but countable set of numbers. $\endgroup$ – Sara Winslet May 27 '16 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ @ Sara Winslet , I think that your problem is difficult and interesting. Can you tell me the origin of this problem ? On the other hand, if you delete the fourth (or the fifth row), the valuations of the considered functions are distinct and the problem is less difficult; how have you shown your result above: "the matrix formed by deleting the fourth row has vanishing determinant for some λ's belong to a specific infinite but countable set of numbers." ? $\endgroup$ – loup blanc Jun 28 '16 at 10:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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