2-15. Regard an $n \times n $ matrix as a point in the $n$-fold product $\Bbb{R^n} \times \cdots\times \Bbb{R^n}$ by considering each row as a member of $\Bbb{R^n}$.

(a) Prove that $det: \Bbb{R^n} \times \cdots \times \Bbb{R^n} \to \Bbb{R}$ is differentiable and $ D(\mathrm{det})(a_1,\ldots,a_n)(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=\sum_{n=i}^{n} \mathrm{det} \begin{bmatrix}  a_1 \\ \vdots \\ x_i\\ \vdots\\ a_n \end{bmatrix}$

(b) if $a_{ij}: \Bbb{R} \to \Bbb{R} $ are differentiable and $f(t)=det(a_{ij}(t))$, show that $f'(t)= \sum_{j=1}^{n} det \begin{bmatrix}  a_{11}(t),\ldots, a_{1n}(t)\\ \vdots\\ a_{j1}'(t),\ldots, a_{jn}'(t)\\ \vdots \\ a_{n1}(t),\ldots, a_{nn}(t) \end{bmatrix}$

(c) if $\mathrm{det} (a_{ij}(t)) \neq 0$ for all $t$ and $b_1,...,b_n: \Bbb{R} \to \Bbb{R}$ are differentiable, let $s_1,\ldots,s_n: \Bbb{R} \to \Bbb{R}$ be the functions such that $s_1(t),\ldots,s_n(t)$ are the solutions of the equations $\sum_{j=1}^{n} a_{ij}(t)s_j(t)=b_i(t)$ $i=1,\ldots,n$.

show that $s_i$ is differentiable and find $s_i'(t)$.

Problem 2-40 asks to redo problem 2-15(c) using the implicit function theorem.

2-12 theorem (implicit function theorem). Suppose $ f: \Bbb{R^n} \times \Bbb{R^m} \to \Bbb{R^m} $ is continuously differentiable in an open set containing $(a,b)$ and $f(a,b) =0$. Let be the $m \times m$ matrix. $$(D_{n+j}f^i(a,b))~, \quad 1 \leq i,~j \leq m~.$$ If $\mathrm{det} M \neq 0$, there is an open set $A \subset R^n$ containing $a$ and an open set $B$ subset $R^m$ containing $b$, with the following property: for each $x \in A$ there is a unique $g(x)$ in $B$ such that $f(x,g(x)) =0$. the function $g$ is differentiable.

Call $i^{th}$ row of $(a_{ji}(t))$ as $R_i(t)$. Let me define $g(t)= \begin{bmatrix}  s_1(t) \\ s_2 (t)\\ \vdots \\ s_n(t)  \end{bmatrix}$. thus $R_i(t)g(t)=b_i(t)$. If I define $f:\Bbb{R^n} \times \Bbb{R^n} \to \Bbb{R^n}$ such that $f(R_i(t),g(t)) = R_i(t)g(t)=b_i(t)$, the first difficulty I face is that the theorem will provide $g(t)$ is differentiable only if $b_i(t)=0$, which may not be true.

To overcome this difficulty, how should I define $f$ so that the theorem will provide me that $g(t)$ is differentiable?

  • $\begingroup$ sure, will edit soon $\endgroup$ – Vinay Deshpande Apr 30 '19 at 11:04

We have the system of linear equations

$\begin{pmatrix} a_{11}(t) & a_{12}(t) & \cdots & a_{1n}(t) \\ a_{21}(t) & a_{22}(t) & \cdots & a_{2n}(t) \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ a_{n1}(t) & a_{n2}(t) & \cdots & a_{nn}(t) \\ \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} s_1(t) \\ s_2(t) \\ \vdots \\ s_n(t) \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix} b_1(t) \\ b_2(t) \\ \vdots \\ b_n(t) \end{pmatrix}$

Which is convenient to write in matrix form

$A(t)s(t) = b(t)$.

The goal is to show that if the matrix $A(t)$ is invertible for all $t$, then solutions exist, are differentiable (and the book describes how one may go about computing the derivatives).

To set-up the application of the Implicit function theorem, we can define

$f : \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$


$f(t,\, s) = A(t)s - b(t)$.

This completes the set-up of the question, which is all you have asked, but I will continue for my own curiosity.

Now we should look at the matrix

$(D_{1+j}f^i(t,\,s))_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}$

We have

$f^i(t,\,s) = \left(\sum_{k=1}^n a_{ik}(t)s_k\right) - b_i(t)$


$\begin{align*} D_{1+1}f^i(t,\,s) &= \frac{\partial f^i(t,\,s)}{\partial s_1} = a_{i1}(t) \\ D_{1+2}f^i(t,\,s) &= \frac{\partial f^i(t,\,s)}{\partial s_2} = a_{i2}(t) \\ \vdots \\ D_{1+n}f^i(t,\,s) &= \frac{\partial f^i(t,\,s)}{\partial s_n} = a_{in}(t) \end{align*}$

So the matrix in the statement of the I.F.T. is just

$(D_{1+j}f^i(t,\,s))_{1 \leq i,j \leq n} = A(t)$.

By hypothesis on $A(t)$, this is invertible for all $t$. In particular, about any $t_0$, there is an open set $I$ containing $t_0$ and an open set $B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ containing $s_0$, such that for each $t \in I$, there is a unique $s(t) \in B$ such that $0 = f(t,\,s(t)) = A(t)s(t) - b(t)$, i.e. $s(t)$ is a solution of the system of linear equations, and $s(t)$ is a differentiable function of $t$.

  • $\begingroup$ it's only now that I notice that the inverse function theorem requires $f$ to be continuously differentiable while the $f$ you defined is not, since $A(t)$ and $b(t)$ are not given to be continuously differentiable $\endgroup$ – Vinay Deshpande May 8 '19 at 9:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right. But I would guess Spivak's intention is for us to suppose that in addition that $A(t)$ and $b(t)$ are continuously differentiable. Otherwise, I don't see how to make headway on the problem. :) $\endgroup$ – Jane Doé May 8 '19 at 17:56

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.