1
$\begingroup$

Given a permutation $\sigma \in P_n$, let $I(\sigma)$ be the number of inversions in $\sigma$, i.e. the number of pairs $(i, j)$ with $i<j$ and $\sigma(j)<\sigma(i)$. For every $\sigma \in P_n$ the signum (or signature) of $\sigma$ is defined by $\varepsilon_\sigma = (-1)^{I(\sigma)}$

Proof.

Consider the product $$V_n = \prod_{i<j}(j-i)$$ For every $\sigma \in P_n$ define $$\sigma(V_n) = \prod_{i<j}[\sigma(j)-\sigma(i)]$$ Since $\sigma$ is a bijection, every factor of $V_n$ occurs precisely once in $\sigma(V_n)$, up to a possible change in sign. Consequently we have $$\sigma(V_n) = (-1)^{I(\sigma)}V_n=\varepsilon_{\sigma}V_n$$ Given $\rho, \sigma \in P_n$ we have similarly $\rho\sigma(V_n) = \varepsilon_{\rho}\sigma(V_n)$. Consequently, $$\varepsilon_{\rho\sigma}V_n=\rho\sigma(V_n) = \varepsilon_{\rho}\sigma(V_n)=\varepsilon_{\rho}\varepsilon_{\sigma}V_n$$ whence, since $V_n \neq 0$, we obtain $\varepsilon_{\rho\sigma} = \varepsilon_{\rho}\varepsilon_\sigma$

I've googled for the different proofs of this theorem, but they involve cycles, parity, etc - way simpler concepts in terms of group theory. And I do understand them.

However, I found this very proof in a book on linear algebra, in "determinants" chapter. And I found myself completely messed up with this proof.

Here are my questions:

  1. What does $I(\sigma)$ show(what is it's meaning)? What is it's domain? What is it's range(meaning)? It's a function $I:n \times n \to \mathbb N \cup \{0\}$, but what is the meaning of this function?

  2. if $\sigma \in P_n$, then range of $\sigma$ is 1..n. And sigma is already defined to be one of $P_n$. Now if we define $\sigma(V_n) = \prod_{i<j}{[\sigma(j)-\sigma(i)]}$, we may get values of $\sigma > n$. So why already defined $\sigma$ is being altered?

  3. What "factors" of $V_n$ do occur precisely once in $\sigma(V_n)$? And where: in domain or in range? And what "change of sign" is mentioned in "up to a possible change of sign"?

I'm asking these questions because I completely can't get any logic path between cause and effect in this argument & it seems using not properly defined notions... Maybe the author is using too cryptic/ambiguous notation, it's just not formal enough for me to understand it without clarifications/tutor. But this book contains "basic linear algebra" in it's title, and I guess it may be used for self study. At least I studied more than 135 of 200 pages without any assistance & this is the very first theorem I'm lost with.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$
  1. $I(\sigma)$ just count the number of inversions in $\sigma$. For example, let $$\sigma=\begin{pmatrix}1&2&3&4&5&6\\ 3&4&6&2&5&1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then $(1,4)$ is an inversion in $\sigma$ since $\sigma(1)>\sigma(4).$ It can be checked that all inversions in $\sigma$ are $$(1,4),(1,6),(2,4)(2,6),(3,4),(3,5)(3,6),(4,6),(5,6).$$ Hence $I(\sigma)=9$.
    The domain of $I$ is $P_n$, while the range is $\{0,1,\dots,\binom{n}{2}\}$.

  2. Strictly speaking, for every $\sigma\in P_n$, $\sigma$ acts on $V_n$ by the rule given. So the function $\sigma$ is not altered, but we want to observe how $\sigma$ affects $V_n$. To avoid confusion, you can check that some books defined $$V_n = \prod_{i<j}(x_j-x_i)$$ and $$\sigma(V_n)=\prod_{i<j}(x_{\sigma(j)}-x_{\sigma(i)})$$

  3. Here I give example by considering $P_3$. Let $\sigma=(123)$. Then $V_n=(2-1)(3-1)(3-2)$ and $\sigma(V_n)=(3-2)(1-2)(1-3)$. You can see that the factors $(2-1),(3-1),(3-2)$ all occurs exactly once in $\sigma(V_n)$ but the sign of $(2-1),(3-1)$ are changed to $-(2-1),-(3-1)$ in $\sigma(V_n)$.

You may refer the book Introduction to Group Theory by Walter Ledermann, pages 133-135 for a proof of this result using similar methods.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $P_n$ is the domain of $I$, now I see what the "number of inversions in $\sigma$" means! And as for (2) and (3), what does $x_j$ notation mean? And is $V_n$ a scalar?(it seems to be, from notation). Also, $\sigma$ takes a scalar as an argument. And can we define $\sigma(a*b)$? As what happens in $\sigma(V_n)=\prod_{i<j}(...)$ seems nonsense to me, as $\sigma$ has to be defined over product AND be linear... Just mess. So until we prove this fact, this equation is somewhat doubtful, unless I understand wrong the notation itself... $\endgroup$ – Oleksandr Khryplyvenko Oct 18 '20 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ @OleksandrKhryplyvenko $x_j$ are indeterminates. In this case, $V_n$ is a polynomial in $n$ variables. We want to observe that after $\sigma$ "acts on" (or affect) $V_n$, how many factors change their sign. $\endgroup$ – Alan Wang Oct 19 '20 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ Now I see, the notation of $\sigma(V_n)$ itself is informal. Strictly speaking, we don't evaluate $\sigma(V_n)$, we just write it down for 'handy usage', and we just evaluate the $\prod_{i<j}(x_{\sigma(j)}- x_{\sigma(i)})$ expression. The last part for me to understand is "Since 𝜎 is a bijection, every factor of 𝑉𝑛 occurs precisely once in 𝜎(𝑉𝑛), up to a possible change in sign". It's not obvious. I'll try to prove it myself $\endgroup$ – Oleksandr Khryplyvenko Oct 19 '20 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ I referred to the book you mentioned, but the explanation is priceless: "Clearly, if the indeterminates are subjected to a permutation $\alpha$, the function $\Delta$ either remains unchanged or else is multiplied by -1" Clearly!!! Unfortunately it's not "Clearly" for me why... $\endgroup$ – Oleksandr Khryplyvenko Oct 19 '20 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ @OleksandrKhryplyvenko They tried to skip the proof for that part because the proof is tedious. The main point is for $\sigma\in P_n$, $\sigma(V_n)$ must be $V_n$ or $-V_n$. $\endgroup$ – Alan Wang Oct 19 '20 at 13:50

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.