3
$\begingroup$

While working on a problem, I managed to reduce it to showing that the matrix $A = [a_{ij}]$, where $2a_{ij} = \frac{1}{i+j-1} - \frac{(-1)^{i+j-1}}{i+j-1}$, has non-zero determinant, for whatever size you choose. Here are a few cases: $$\det\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{3} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{3} & 0 \\ \frac{1}{3} & 0 & \frac{1}{5} \end{bmatrix} = \frac{4}{135};$$

$$\det\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{3} & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{3} & 0 & \frac{1}{5}\\ \frac{1}{3} & 0 & \frac{1}{5} & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{5} & 0 & \frac{1}{7} \end{bmatrix} = \frac{16}{23625}$$

I worked on a few cases using online calculators, but explicit determinant calculation in arbitrary sizes is very cumbersome. It seems to tend to $0$, but to always be positive. In fact, I suspect this is a positive-definite matrix, but, again, couldn't quite prove it - and I recall having seen it in a computational setting before, maybe numerical integration, though I'm not sure...

Anyhow, is there any technique I can use to show this has non-zero determinant for any size I pick?

Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Observation: $A$ is symmetric. Although I don't see how that can be used yet $\endgroup$
    – fwd
    Aug 25, 2021 at 20:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, why do you have zero entries in your examples? $\endgroup$
    – fwd
    Aug 25, 2021 at 20:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might be a bit of extra algebra, but for the first few cases, use row reduction to diagonalize. You may find a common pattern due to the common structure. This way, you could show all diagonal elements are nonzero and thus $\det(A)=\prod_k \lambda_k$ is nonzero. $\endgroup$
    – Jacob A
    Aug 25, 2021 at 21:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Extra hint/observation: your second example contains a principal submatrix equal to your first example. So I believe you will have a straightforward proof by induction (using also my prior comment). $\endgroup$
    – Jacob A
    Aug 25, 2021 at 21:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Outline of another solution: $A$ is half the Grammian matrix of the linearly independent vectors $1, x, x^2, \ldots, x^{n-1}$ in $L^2[-1, 1]$ and is therefore positive definite. (So, to unfold the standard proof of Grammian matrices being positive definite: for a column vector $b$, $b^T A b = \frac{1}{2} \int_{-1}^1 (b_0 + b_1 x + \cdots + b_{n-1} x^{n-1})^2\,dx$.) $\endgroup$ Aug 25, 2021 at 22:27

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$
  • Let $C:=(\frac1{i+j-1})_{1\le i,j\le n}$. This is a symmetric matrix known as a Cauchy matrix. By Sylvester's criterion, it is positive-definite.

  • Let $D$ be the $n\times n$ diagonal matrix whose $i$-th diagonal element is $(-1)^{i-1}$. We can easily check by matrix multiplication that $A=(DCD+C)/2$.

  • We observe that $DCD=(D\sqrt C)(D\sqrt C)^T$ where $\det(D\sqrt C)\neq0$, so $DCD$ is also a positive-definite matrix. Hence $A$ is the sum of two positive-definite matrices, and therefore also positive-definite. In particular $\det(A)>0$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ [+1] for the astute method of solution, but I disagree with the term "Cauchy matrix" for $C$ : it is a Hilbert matrix $\endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Aug 26, 2021 at 7:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jean Marie: you're right, I kind of mixed up the two. A Hilbert matrix is a special case of a Cauchy matrix. $\endgroup$
    – nejimban
    Aug 26, 2021 at 8:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with the qualification "special case" but it is not worth the value to refer to a Cauchy matrix. $\endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Aug 26, 2021 at 9:54

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.