1
$\begingroup$

Let $A\in \mathcal{M_{m,n}} $ and $B\in\mathcal M_{n,s}$ be matrices.Then any minor of order $k ,1\leq k\leq \min(m,s)$ of the product $AB$ it can be written as a linear combination of minors of order $k$ of matrix $A$ (or $B$).

This one of the theorems in my book. My problem with this theorem is the following

If $n\leq m\leq s$ maybe there exists a minor of $AB$ of order $k_0$ s.t $n\leq k_0\leq m\leq s$. The theorem told me this minor can be write as a linear combination of minors of order $k_0$ of matrix $A$, but all minors of $A$ have order less than $\min(m,n)\leq n \leq k_0$, so $A $ does not have minors of order $k_0$ How is this possible?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If all minors of $A$ have order less than $k_0$, then the theorem is claiming that any order-$k_0$ minor of $AB$ is a linear combination of nothing. This is simply saying that such a minor must be $0$ (because the only linear combination of nothing is $0$). And this is indeed true.

Incidentally, the theorem can be made a lot more explicit: Any order-$k$ minor of $AB$ can be written as a sum of products of the form $\alpha \beta$ where $\alpha$ is an order-$k$ minor of $A$ and where $\beta$ is an order-$k$ minor of $B$. See Cauchy-Binet formula: general form for this fact.

$\endgroup$

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.