0
$\begingroup$

If a $3\times{3}$ matrix has a non-trivial solution to $B\vec{x}=\vec{0}$, then it has linearly dependent rows. Looking at Cramer's rule:

$$x_1=\frac{\begin{vmatrix}0 & b_{12} & b_{13} \\0 & b_{22} & b_{23} \\ 0 & b_{32} & b_{33}\end{vmatrix}}{\det(B)}$$

$$\det(B)x_1=\begin{vmatrix}0 & b_{12} & b_{13} \\0 & b_{22} & b_{23} \\ 0 & b_{32} & b_{33}\end{vmatrix}$$

Since $\begin{vmatrix}0 & b_{12} & b_{13} \\0 & b_{22} & b_{23} \\ 0 & b_{32} & b_{33}\end{vmatrix}$ is clearly equal to $0$, then either $x_1$ has to be $0$, or $\det{B}$ does. Applying the same reasoning to $x_2$ and $x_3$, for $\vec{x}$ to be non-trivial, at least one of the components must be non-zero, meaning that $\det{B}$ must be $0$.

So here's where I have doubts on this proof. Cramer's rule is defined only valid if $\det{B}\ne0$. However, the second equation isn't Cramer's rule, but something that I'm postulating may be a valid statement that follows from Cramer's rule. Since it doesn't result in a division by $0$, I suspect it may be valid, but I'm not entirely sure.

Is this proof valid?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You proved that if $\det(B) \neq 0$, then $Bx=0$ has only a trivial solution. So just use a contraposition argument. $\endgroup$ – Seirios Aug 7 '13 at 4:35
  • $\begingroup$ When you write a supposed mathematical expression of the form $\,x_i=\frac ab\;$ , we're implicitly (and even automatically) assuming $\,b\ne 0\,$, otherwise that is not a mathematical expression. Thus, either you can reach $\,\det(B)\,x_i=...\;$ without first having the division by $\,\det(B)\,$ , or else you can prove that $\,\det(B)\ne 0\,$ upon request...which, of course, you can't, otherwise the argument is, imo, logically non-sound. $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Aug 7 '13 at 6:39
1
$\begingroup$

I think a much easier proof (which avoids the issues you are encountering) runs as follows. If $B$ is a matrix with linearly dependent rows, then we have an elementary row operation matrix such that $AB = B'$, where $B'$ is the same as $B$ except it has a row of zeroes in place of one of the linearly dependent rows. Clearly, $\det(B') = 0$. But by the multiplicativity of determinants, we have $\det(B') = \det(AB) = \det(A)\det(B)$. Since every elementary matrix $A$ has the property $\det(A) = 1$, we have $\det(B) = 0$.

(Of course, if your question is deliberately on this specific method of proof and this answer is not useful to you, I will happily delete it. My apologies if this is the case.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My question is specifically about the proof in my question, but this is a good proof. I appreciate your input :) $\endgroup$ – Ataraxia Aug 7 '13 at 4:36
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough! I will leave it up then. Thanks for taking the time to let me know :) $\endgroup$ – Alex Wertheim Aug 7 '13 at 4:38
1
$\begingroup$

Since a comment already answers your question about the validity of your proof, I'll just go ahead and talk about Cramer's Rule. :)

The second version of Cramer's Rule holds over any commutative ring with unity and is a common tool in some parts of the subject. (In fact, weaker conditions can probably be assumed about the base ring, but they're not coming to mind at the moment/wouldn't work with the proof below.)

If you haven't seen a proof of Cramer's rule, it's very short and doesn't change in this more general setting. It also just so happens that I wrote up the general statement/proof years ago as part of some notes, and I've adapted them for this post below.

If you aren't familiar with rings, just think of each $R$ in what follows as the real numbers (or some other field). Throughout what follows, $M_n(R)$ denotes the set of $n\times n$ matrices with entries in $R$. Also, $v^T$ denotes the transpose of $v$ for any $m \times n$ matrix.

The precise statement of Cramer's Rule is exactly what you'd expect:

Proposition: Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unity. Let $A = (C_1 \mid \cdots \mid C_n) \in \text{M}_n(R)$, $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_n)^T$ and $b = (b_1,\ldots,b_n)^T$ in $R^n$ such that $$ Ax = b. $$ Then for all $k \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ $$ \text{det}(A_k) = \text{det}(C_1,\ldots,C_{k-1},Ax,C_{k+1},\ldots,C_n) = x_k \text{det}(A) $$ where $A_k = (C_1 \mid \cdots \mid C_{k-1} \mid Ax \mid C_{k+1} \mid \cdots \mid C_n)$.

Proof: Let $j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$. Note the first equality is trivial. For the second, observe that $x = x_1 e_1 + \ldots + x_n e_n = \sum_{i = 1}^n x_ie_i$ where $e_1 = (1,0,\ldots,0),\ldots,e_n=(0,\ldots,0,1)$. Hence $$ Ax = \sum_{i = 1}^n x_i Ae_i = \sum_{i = 1}^n x_i C_i. $$ Thus by the multilinearity of the determinant \begin{align} \det(A_j) &= \det(C_1,\ldots,C_{j-1},Ax,C_{j+1},\ldots,C_n) \\ &= \det(C_1,\ldots,C_{j-1},\sum_{i = 1}^n x_i C_i,C_{j+1},\ldots,C_n) \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \det(C_1,\ldots,C_{j-1},C_i,C_{j+1},\ldots,C_n).\qquad\qquad(\star) \end{align} An easy corollary of the fact that $\det$ is an alternating multilinear function is that $\det(M) = 0$ whenever the columns of $M$ are $R$-linearly dependent in $R^n$ (in particular, when $D_i = D_j$ for any $i,j$ with $1 \leq i < j \leq n$). Thus within $(\star)$, only the $j$-th summand $x_j \det(C_1,\ldots,C_{j-1},C_j,C_{j+1},\ldots,C_n)$ is nonzero. Hence \begin{align*} \det(A_j) = x_j \det(C_1,\ldots,C_{j-1},C_j,C_{j+1},\ldots,C_n) = x_j \det(A) \end{align*} as claimed.

$\endgroup$

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.