# Relationship between 2 determinants [closed]

Let $D_1= \begin{vmatrix}a_1 & b_1 & c_1\\ a_2 & b_2 & c_2 \\ a_3 & b_3 & c_3 \\ \end{vmatrix}$ and

$D_2= \begin{vmatrix}a_1+pb_1 & b_1+qc_1 & c_1+ra_1\\ a_2+pb_2 & b_2+qc_2 & c_2+ra_2\\ a_3+pb_3 & b_3+qc_3 & c_3+ra_3\\ \end{vmatrix}$, then how is $D_2= D_1(1+pqr)?$

## closed as off-topic by Did, Claude Leibovici, Watson, Dan Rust, Paramanand SinghJun 17 '16 at 12:25

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Did, Claude Leibovici, Watson, Dan Rust, Paramanand Singh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Mind fixing the formatting slightly. I know I can solve it like your last one, but I need it to be better edited. Thank you. – The Great Duck Jun 17 '16 at 3:12
• Okay thanks. Now its fully edited – Ujjwal Jun 17 '16 at 3:14
• @thegreatduck the question is waiting to be looked upon.. – Ujjwal Jun 17 '16 at 3:31
• That edit is wrong. D1 is the determinant. – The Great Duck Jun 17 '16 at 3:32
• I was just slow in working it out, and writing it all. – The Great Duck Jun 17 '16 at 3:42

## 3 Answers

Define $\mathbf a$ to be the column $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$ and similarly for the other letters. For simplicity I'll write a matrix as a row of columns. In this notation, your matrix is \begin{align*} (\mathbf a+p\mathbf b,\mathbf b+q\mathbf c,\mathbf c+r\mathbf a). \end{align*} As someone mentioned, the determinant is a trilinear form on the columns, meaning you can effectively "FOIL" them out like you would a product of polynomials. When you do this you get $2\times2\times2=8$ terms but note that some of them look like, for example, \begin{align*} \det(p\mathbf b,\mathbf b,\mathbf c). \end{align*} which equals zero since the first two columns are a multiple of each other. Therefore the only terms you have to worry about are \begin{align*} \det(\mathbf a,\mathbf b,\mathbf c)+\det(p\mathbf b,q\mathbf c,r\mathbf a). \end{align*} You can exchange the first and third, followed by second and third columns in the second term (each time picking up a minus sign) to get \begin{align*} \det(\mathbf a,\mathbf b,\mathbf c)+(-1)^2\det(r\mathbf a,p\mathbf b,q\mathbf c). \end{align*} Finally, taking out the constant factors, you get \begin{align*} \det(\mathbf a,\mathbf b,\mathbf c)+(-1)^2rpq\det(\mathbf a,\mathbf b,\mathbf c)=D_1(1+pqr) \end{align*} as desired.

Important note: In this very special case it did end up being the case that $\det(A+B)=\det A+\det B$. However this is only because of the peculiar relationship between the columns. In the vast majority of the cases, this will not hold so you should not skip any steps.

• A way to summarize your point of caution: A determinant is a multilinear function of its column vectors (and of its row vectors, of course), and is not in general a multilinear function of matrices. – Semiclassical Jun 17 '16 at 5:00
• I should also say that while I think writing out an explicit matrix multiplication is simpler in the present case (hence my answer), the multilinearity of the determinant is definitely better for generalizing to higher dimensional cases. – Semiclassical Jun 17 '16 at 5:15
• Your solution is prettier but maybe harder to do quickly in your head. – Funktorality Jun 17 '16 at 5:20
• This answer copied pretty much what I did... – The Great Duck Jun 18 '16 at 20:36
• @TheGreatDuck No, your first answer made use of the fallacy that $\det(A+B)=\det A+\det B$. – Funktorality Jun 18 '16 at 20:51

In fact, the two matrices involved differ only by a matrix multiplication: $$\begin{pmatrix}a_1 & b_1 & c_1\\ a_2 & b_2 & c_2 \\ a_3 & b_3 & c_3 \\ \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & r\\ p & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & q & 1 \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}a_1+pb_1 & b_1+qc_1 & c_1+ra_1\\ a_2+pb_2 & b_2+qc_2 & c_2+ra_2\\ a_3+pb_3 & b_3+qc_3 & c_3+ra_3\\ \end{pmatrix}.$$ But this matrix has determinant $1+pqr$, so $D_2$ must differ from $D_1$ by precisely this factor.

Three main operations govern matrices in the elementary sense. Below are how each of these change the determinant:

Swapping two rows or columns => negates the determinant

Adding a multiple of one row or column to another => no change

Multiplying a column or row by a constant => multiply the derivative by the constant

By doing the following sequence of operations we change D1 to two mratrixes very close to D2:

Add rC1 to C3

Add qC3 to C2

Subtract qrC1 from C2

This gives a version of C2 with only a terms in the leftmost column.

Now using the algebraic rule a commentor mentioned, we see that this matrixes determinant (D1 by observation) will be added to the other matrixes determinant.

We will continue row operations where we left off...

Subtract C3/r from C1

Multiply C1 by r

Subtract C2/q from C1

Multiply C1 by qp

Now the second matrix has been built. By simple inspection we see it is equal to D1pqr.

By combining the two matrix determinants:

D2 = D1 + pqrD1

• Determinant is not a linear operator, determinant is tri-linear in terms of the columns and rows $D(v_1 +u_1, v_2,v_3) = D ( v_1,v_2,v_3) + D( u_1,v_2,v_3)$ – clark Jun 17 '16 at 3:41
• Hmm... Well then it is all flawed. The answer he gave could not be right under that premise. Are you sure? I thought the derivative was linear with regards to matrix additions? – The Great Duck Jun 17 '16 at 3:44
• @clark i believe you are thinking of factoring out multiplication which would be "tri-linear" as you put it. – The Great Duck Jun 17 '16 at 3:46
• For instance $$1=\left | \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right | = \left | \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right |+ \left | \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right |=0$$ – clark Jun 17 '16 at 3:46
• Btw, I did not downvote. – clark Jun 17 '16 at 3:52