Vandermonde determinant by induction
$begingroup$
For $n$ variables $x_1,ldots,x_n$, the determinant
$$
detleft((x_i^{j-1})_{i,j=1}^nright) =
left|begin{matrix}
1&x_1&x_1^2&cdots & x_1^{n-1}\
1&x_2&x_2^2&cdots & x_2^{n-1} \
vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
1&x_{n-1}&x_{n-1}^2&cdots&x_{n-1}^{n-1}\
1 &x_n&x_n^2&cdots&x_n^{n-1}
end{matrix}right|
$$ can be computed by induction; the image below says it shows that. I have done this before, if I submit this will I get marks?
MORE IMPORTANTLY how do I do it by induction? The "hint" is to get the first row to $(1,0,0,...,0)$.
I think there are the grounds of induction in there, but I'm not sure how (I'm not very confident with induction when the structure isn't shown for $n=k$, assume for $n=r$, show if $n=r$ then $n=r+1$ is true.
By the way the question is to show the determinant at the start equals the product $$prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$$ (but again, explicitly by induction)
linear-algebra induction determinant
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For $n$ variables $x_1,ldots,x_n$, the determinant
$$
detleft((x_i^{j-1})_{i,j=1}^nright) =
left|begin{matrix}
1&x_1&x_1^2&cdots & x_1^{n-1}\
1&x_2&x_2^2&cdots & x_2^{n-1} \
vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
1&x_{n-1}&x_{n-1}^2&cdots&x_{n-1}^{n-1}\
1 &x_n&x_n^2&cdots&x_n^{n-1}
end{matrix}right|
$$ can be computed by induction; the image below says it shows that. I have done this before, if I submit this will I get marks?
MORE IMPORTANTLY how do I do it by induction? The "hint" is to get the first row to $(1,0,0,...,0)$.
I think there are the grounds of induction in there, but I'm not sure how (I'm not very confident with induction when the structure isn't shown for $n=k$, assume for $n=r$, show if $n=r$ then $n=r+1$ is true.
By the way the question is to show the determinant at the start equals the product $$prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$$ (but again, explicitly by induction)
linear-algebra induction determinant
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
There's a nice non-inductive proof. Would that work for you?
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
@Marie only for my curiosity, the question says "Show using induction". I am of course curious.
$endgroup$
– Alec Teal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
Actually, my memory tricked me. There is an induction. I'm posting it below.
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
$begingroup$
ProofWiki has two proofs using mathematical induction.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Oct 14 '13 at 6:42
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For $n$ variables $x_1,ldots,x_n$, the determinant
$$
detleft((x_i^{j-1})_{i,j=1}^nright) =
left|begin{matrix}
1&x_1&x_1^2&cdots & x_1^{n-1}\
1&x_2&x_2^2&cdots & x_2^{n-1} \
vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
1&x_{n-1}&x_{n-1}^2&cdots&x_{n-1}^{n-1}\
1 &x_n&x_n^2&cdots&x_n^{n-1}
end{matrix}right|
$$ can be computed by induction; the image below says it shows that. I have done this before, if I submit this will I get marks?
MORE IMPORTANTLY how do I do it by induction? The "hint" is to get the first row to $(1,0,0,...,0)$.
I think there are the grounds of induction in there, but I'm not sure how (I'm not very confident with induction when the structure isn't shown for $n=k$, assume for $n=r$, show if $n=r$ then $n=r+1$ is true.
By the way the question is to show the determinant at the start equals the product $$prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$$ (but again, explicitly by induction)
linear-algebra induction determinant
$endgroup$
For $n$ variables $x_1,ldots,x_n$, the determinant
$$
detleft((x_i^{j-1})_{i,j=1}^nright) =
left|begin{matrix}
1&x_1&x_1^2&cdots & x_1^{n-1}\
1&x_2&x_2^2&cdots & x_2^{n-1} \
vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
1&x_{n-1}&x_{n-1}^2&cdots&x_{n-1}^{n-1}\
1 &x_n&x_n^2&cdots&x_n^{n-1}
end{matrix}right|
$$ can be computed by induction; the image below says it shows that. I have done this before, if I submit this will I get marks?
MORE IMPORTANTLY how do I do it by induction? The "hint" is to get the first row to $(1,0,0,...,0)$.
I think there are the grounds of induction in there, but I'm not sure how (I'm not very confident with induction when the structure isn't shown for $n=k$, assume for $n=r$, show if $n=r$ then $n=r+1$ is true.
By the way the question is to show the determinant at the start equals the product $$prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$$ (but again, explicitly by induction)
linear-algebra induction determinant
linear-algebra induction determinant
edited Dec 3 '18 at 10:03
Marc van Leeuwen
86.7k5107222
86.7k5107222
asked Oct 14 '13 at 2:36
Alec TealAlec Teal
3,52311944
3,52311944
4
$begingroup$
There's a nice non-inductive proof. Would that work for you?
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
@Marie only for my curiosity, the question says "Show using induction". I am of course curious.
$endgroup$
– Alec Teal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
Actually, my memory tricked me. There is an induction. I'm posting it below.
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
$begingroup$
ProofWiki has two proofs using mathematical induction.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Oct 14 '13 at 6:42
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
There's a nice non-inductive proof. Would that work for you?
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
@Marie only for my curiosity, the question says "Show using induction". I am of course curious.
$endgroup$
– Alec Teal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
Actually, my memory tricked me. There is an induction. I'm posting it below.
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
$begingroup$
ProofWiki has two proofs using mathematical induction.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Oct 14 '13 at 6:42
4
4
$begingroup$
There's a nice non-inductive proof. Would that work for you?
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
There's a nice non-inductive proof. Would that work for you?
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
@Marie only for my curiosity, the question says "Show using induction". I am of course curious.
$endgroup$
– Alec Teal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
@Marie only for my curiosity, the question says "Show using induction". I am of course curious.
$endgroup$
– Alec Teal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
Actually, my memory tricked me. There is an induction. I'm posting it below.
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
$begingroup$
Actually, my memory tricked me. There is an induction. I'm posting it below.
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
$begingroup$
ProofWiki has two proofs using mathematical induction.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Oct 14 '13 at 6:42
$begingroup$
ProofWiki has two proofs using mathematical induction.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Oct 14 '13 at 6:42
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're facing the matrix
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\a_1&a_2&cdots &a_n&a_{n+1}\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\a_1^{n-1}&a_2^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n-1}\a_1^{n}&a_2^{n}&cdots&a_n^{n}&a_{n+1}^{n}end{pmatrix}
By subtracting $a_1$ times the $i$-th row to the $i+1$-th row, you get
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\ 0&a_2-a_1&cdots &a_n-a_1&a_{n+1}-a_1\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\ 0&a_2^{n}-a_1a_{2}^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^n-a_1a_{n}^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n}-a_1a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}
Expanding by the first column and factoring $a_i-a_1$ from the $i$-th column for $i=2,ldots,n+1$, you get the determinant is
$$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) detbegin{pmatrix} 1& 1&cdots&1\a_2&a_3&cdots&a_{n+1}\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\a_2^{n-1}&a_3^{n-1}&cdots&a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}$$
You may apply your inductive hypothesis, to get this is $$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) prod_{2leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)$$ and the inductive step is complete.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
1
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(T) = T^{n-1} + a_1 T^{n-2} + dots + a_{n-1}$ be the polynomial $(T-x_2)(T-x_3)dots (T-x_n)$. By adding to the rightmost column an appropriate linear combination of the other columns (namely the combination with coefficients $a_1, dots, a_{n-1}$), we can make sure that the last column is replaced by the vector $(f(x_1), 0, 0, dots, 0)$, since by construction $f(x_2) = dots = f(x_n) =0$. Of course this doesn't change the determinant. The determinant is therefore equal to $f(x_1)$ times $D$, where $D$ is the determinant of the $(n-1) times (n-1)$ matrix which is obtained from the original one by deleting the first row and the last column. Then, we apply the induction hypothesis, using the fact that $f(x_1) = (x_1 - x_2)(x_1-x_3) dots (x_1-x_n)$. And we are done!
By the way, this matrix is known as a Vandermonde matrix.
I learned this trick many years ago in Marcus' Number fields.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Although this does not really answer the question (in particular, I cannot tell whether you whether submitting the image will give you any marks), it does explain the evaluation of the determinant (and one can get an inductive proof from it if one really insists, though it would be rather similar to the answer by Bruno Joyal).
The most natural setting in which the Vandermonde matrix $V_n$ arises is the followig. Evaluating a polynomial over$~K$ in each of the points $x_1,ldots,x_n$ of $K$ gives rise to a linear map $K[X]to K^n$ i.e., the map $f:Pmapsto (P[x_1],P[x_2],ldots,P[x_n])$ (here $P[a]$ denotes the result of substituting $X:=a$ into$~P$). Then $V_n$ is the matrix of the restriction of $f$ to the subspace $defKxn{K[X]_{<n}}Kxn$ of polynomials of degree less than$~n$, relative to the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ of that subspace. Any family $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ of polynomials in which $P_i$ is monic of degree$~i$ for $i=0,1,ldots,n-1$ is also a basis of$~Kxn$, and moreover the change of basis matrix$~U$ from the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ to $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ will be upper triangular with diagonal entries all$~1$, by the definition of beig monic of degree$~i$. So $det(U)=1$, which means that the determinant of$~V_n$ is the same as that of the matrix$~M$ expressing our linear map on the basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ (which matrix equals $V_ncdot U$).
By choosing the new basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ carefully, one can arrange that the basis-changed matrix is lower triangular. Concretely column$~j$ of$~M$, which describes $f(P_{j-1})$ (since we number columns from$~1$), has as entries $(P_{j-1}[x_1],P_{j-1}[x_2],ldots,P_{j-1}[x_n])$, so lower-triangularity means that $x_i$ is a root of $P_{j-1}$ whenever $i<j$. This can be achieved by taking for $P_k$ the product $(X-x_1)ldots(X-x_k)$, which is monic of degree $k$. Now the diagonal entry in column$~j$ of$~M$ is $P_{j-1}[x_j]=(x_j-x_1)ldots(x_j-x_{j-1})$, and $det(V_n)$ is the product of these expressions for $j=1,ldots,n$, which is $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f525334%2fvandermonde-determinant-by-induction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're facing the matrix
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\a_1&a_2&cdots &a_n&a_{n+1}\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\a_1^{n-1}&a_2^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n-1}\a_1^{n}&a_2^{n}&cdots&a_n^{n}&a_{n+1}^{n}end{pmatrix}
By subtracting $a_1$ times the $i$-th row to the $i+1$-th row, you get
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\ 0&a_2-a_1&cdots &a_n-a_1&a_{n+1}-a_1\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\ 0&a_2^{n}-a_1a_{2}^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^n-a_1a_{n}^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n}-a_1a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}
Expanding by the first column and factoring $a_i-a_1$ from the $i$-th column for $i=2,ldots,n+1$, you get the determinant is
$$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) detbegin{pmatrix} 1& 1&cdots&1\a_2&a_3&cdots&a_{n+1}\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\a_2^{n-1}&a_3^{n-1}&cdots&a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}$$
You may apply your inductive hypothesis, to get this is $$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) prod_{2leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)$$ and the inductive step is complete.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
1
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're facing the matrix
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\a_1&a_2&cdots &a_n&a_{n+1}\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\a_1^{n-1}&a_2^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n-1}\a_1^{n}&a_2^{n}&cdots&a_n^{n}&a_{n+1}^{n}end{pmatrix}
By subtracting $a_1$ times the $i$-th row to the $i+1$-th row, you get
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\ 0&a_2-a_1&cdots &a_n-a_1&a_{n+1}-a_1\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\ 0&a_2^{n}-a_1a_{2}^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^n-a_1a_{n}^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n}-a_1a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}
Expanding by the first column and factoring $a_i-a_1$ from the $i$-th column for $i=2,ldots,n+1$, you get the determinant is
$$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) detbegin{pmatrix} 1& 1&cdots&1\a_2&a_3&cdots&a_{n+1}\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\a_2^{n-1}&a_3^{n-1}&cdots&a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}$$
You may apply your inductive hypothesis, to get this is $$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) prod_{2leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)$$ and the inductive step is complete.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
1
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're facing the matrix
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\a_1&a_2&cdots &a_n&a_{n+1}\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\a_1^{n-1}&a_2^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n-1}\a_1^{n}&a_2^{n}&cdots&a_n^{n}&a_{n+1}^{n}end{pmatrix}
By subtracting $a_1$ times the $i$-th row to the $i+1$-th row, you get
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\ 0&a_2-a_1&cdots &a_n-a_1&a_{n+1}-a_1\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\ 0&a_2^{n}-a_1a_{2}^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^n-a_1a_{n}^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n}-a_1a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}
Expanding by the first column and factoring $a_i-a_1$ from the $i$-th column for $i=2,ldots,n+1$, you get the determinant is
$$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) detbegin{pmatrix} 1& 1&cdots&1\a_2&a_3&cdots&a_{n+1}\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\a_2^{n-1}&a_3^{n-1}&cdots&a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}$$
You may apply your inductive hypothesis, to get this is $$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) prod_{2leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)$$ and the inductive step is complete.
$endgroup$
You're facing the matrix
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\a_1&a_2&cdots &a_n&a_{n+1}\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\a_1^{n-1}&a_2^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n-1}\a_1^{n}&a_2^{n}&cdots&a_n^{n}&a_{n+1}^{n}end{pmatrix}
By subtracting $a_1$ times the $i$-th row to the $i+1$-th row, you get
begin{pmatrix} 1&1&cdots & 1 &1\ 0&a_2-a_1&cdots &a_n-a_1&a_{n+1}-a_1\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots&vdots\ 0&a_2^{n}-a_1a_{2}^{n-1}&cdots&a_n^n-a_1a_{n}^{n-1}& a_{n+1}^{n}-a_1a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}
Expanding by the first column and factoring $a_i-a_1$ from the $i$-th column for $i=2,ldots,n+1$, you get the determinant is
$$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) detbegin{pmatrix} 1& 1&cdots&1\a_2&a_3&cdots&a_{n+1}\ vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\a_2^{n-1}&a_3^{n-1}&cdots&a_{n+1}^{n-1}end{pmatrix}$$
You may apply your inductive hypothesis, to get this is $$=prod_{j=2}^{n+1}(a_j-a_1) prod_{2leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n+1}(a_j-a_i)$$ and the inductive step is complete.
edited Jul 12 '15 at 13:08
darij grinberg
10.5k33062
10.5k33062
answered Oct 14 '13 at 3:11
Pedro Tamaroff♦Pedro Tamaroff
96.6k10153297
96.6k10153297
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
1
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
1
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
$begingroup$
Can you please explain how it is possible to factor out $a_i - a_1$?
$endgroup$
– john.abraham
Sep 2 '15 at 10:05
1
1
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
$begingroup$
$a_j^{i} - a_1 a_j^{i-1} = a_j^{i-1}(a_j - a_1)$
$endgroup$
– D_S
Oct 1 '15 at 4:59
1
1
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
$begingroup$
Even though it is clearly stated, gratuitous change of notation with respect to the question (transposing the matrix and renaming the $x_i$ to $a_i$) is not really helpful, especially in the presence of another answer that does keep the original notation (but uses $a_i$ for a different purpose).
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(T) = T^{n-1} + a_1 T^{n-2} + dots + a_{n-1}$ be the polynomial $(T-x_2)(T-x_3)dots (T-x_n)$. By adding to the rightmost column an appropriate linear combination of the other columns (namely the combination with coefficients $a_1, dots, a_{n-1}$), we can make sure that the last column is replaced by the vector $(f(x_1), 0, 0, dots, 0)$, since by construction $f(x_2) = dots = f(x_n) =0$. Of course this doesn't change the determinant. The determinant is therefore equal to $f(x_1)$ times $D$, where $D$ is the determinant of the $(n-1) times (n-1)$ matrix which is obtained from the original one by deleting the first row and the last column. Then, we apply the induction hypothesis, using the fact that $f(x_1) = (x_1 - x_2)(x_1-x_3) dots (x_1-x_n)$. And we are done!
By the way, this matrix is known as a Vandermonde matrix.
I learned this trick many years ago in Marcus' Number fields.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(T) = T^{n-1} + a_1 T^{n-2} + dots + a_{n-1}$ be the polynomial $(T-x_2)(T-x_3)dots (T-x_n)$. By adding to the rightmost column an appropriate linear combination of the other columns (namely the combination with coefficients $a_1, dots, a_{n-1}$), we can make sure that the last column is replaced by the vector $(f(x_1), 0, 0, dots, 0)$, since by construction $f(x_2) = dots = f(x_n) =0$. Of course this doesn't change the determinant. The determinant is therefore equal to $f(x_1)$ times $D$, where $D$ is the determinant of the $(n-1) times (n-1)$ matrix which is obtained from the original one by deleting the first row and the last column. Then, we apply the induction hypothesis, using the fact that $f(x_1) = (x_1 - x_2)(x_1-x_3) dots (x_1-x_n)$. And we are done!
By the way, this matrix is known as a Vandermonde matrix.
I learned this trick many years ago in Marcus' Number fields.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(T) = T^{n-1} + a_1 T^{n-2} + dots + a_{n-1}$ be the polynomial $(T-x_2)(T-x_3)dots (T-x_n)$. By adding to the rightmost column an appropriate linear combination of the other columns (namely the combination with coefficients $a_1, dots, a_{n-1}$), we can make sure that the last column is replaced by the vector $(f(x_1), 0, 0, dots, 0)$, since by construction $f(x_2) = dots = f(x_n) =0$. Of course this doesn't change the determinant. The determinant is therefore equal to $f(x_1)$ times $D$, where $D$ is the determinant of the $(n-1) times (n-1)$ matrix which is obtained from the original one by deleting the first row and the last column. Then, we apply the induction hypothesis, using the fact that $f(x_1) = (x_1 - x_2)(x_1-x_3) dots (x_1-x_n)$. And we are done!
By the way, this matrix is known as a Vandermonde matrix.
I learned this trick many years ago in Marcus' Number fields.
$endgroup$
Let $f(T) = T^{n-1} + a_1 T^{n-2} + dots + a_{n-1}$ be the polynomial $(T-x_2)(T-x_3)dots (T-x_n)$. By adding to the rightmost column an appropriate linear combination of the other columns (namely the combination with coefficients $a_1, dots, a_{n-1}$), we can make sure that the last column is replaced by the vector $(f(x_1), 0, 0, dots, 0)$, since by construction $f(x_2) = dots = f(x_n) =0$. Of course this doesn't change the determinant. The determinant is therefore equal to $f(x_1)$ times $D$, where $D$ is the determinant of the $(n-1) times (n-1)$ matrix which is obtained from the original one by deleting the first row and the last column. Then, we apply the induction hypothesis, using the fact that $f(x_1) = (x_1 - x_2)(x_1-x_3) dots (x_1-x_n)$. And we are done!
By the way, this matrix is known as a Vandermonde matrix.
I learned this trick many years ago in Marcus' Number fields.
answered Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
Bruno JoyalBruno Joyal
42.5k693185
42.5k693185
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
Sexy! I should read this book if it has more fancy tricks like that.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Da Silva
Dec 24 '13 at 15:06
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
$begingroup$
You get the wrong product (it should have factors $x_j-x_i$ when $i<j$, rather than factors $x_i-x_j$, or else you should throw in a sign $(-1)^{binom n2}$ for the Vandermonde determinant). The explanation is that you produce a factor $f(x_1)$ that is not on the main diagonal, and this means in the induction step you get a sign $(-1)^{n-1}$ in the development of the determinant. This sign could have been avoided by producing a nonzero coefficient in the last entry of the final column instead, using a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with roots at $x_1,ldots,x_{n-1}$ but not at $x_n$.
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
Dec 3 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Although this does not really answer the question (in particular, I cannot tell whether you whether submitting the image will give you any marks), it does explain the evaluation of the determinant (and one can get an inductive proof from it if one really insists, though it would be rather similar to the answer by Bruno Joyal).
The most natural setting in which the Vandermonde matrix $V_n$ arises is the followig. Evaluating a polynomial over$~K$ in each of the points $x_1,ldots,x_n$ of $K$ gives rise to a linear map $K[X]to K^n$ i.e., the map $f:Pmapsto (P[x_1],P[x_2],ldots,P[x_n])$ (here $P[a]$ denotes the result of substituting $X:=a$ into$~P$). Then $V_n$ is the matrix of the restriction of $f$ to the subspace $defKxn{K[X]_{<n}}Kxn$ of polynomials of degree less than$~n$, relative to the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ of that subspace. Any family $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ of polynomials in which $P_i$ is monic of degree$~i$ for $i=0,1,ldots,n-1$ is also a basis of$~Kxn$, and moreover the change of basis matrix$~U$ from the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ to $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ will be upper triangular with diagonal entries all$~1$, by the definition of beig monic of degree$~i$. So $det(U)=1$, which means that the determinant of$~V_n$ is the same as that of the matrix$~M$ expressing our linear map on the basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ (which matrix equals $V_ncdot U$).
By choosing the new basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ carefully, one can arrange that the basis-changed matrix is lower triangular. Concretely column$~j$ of$~M$, which describes $f(P_{j-1})$ (since we number columns from$~1$), has as entries $(P_{j-1}[x_1],P_{j-1}[x_2],ldots,P_{j-1}[x_n])$, so lower-triangularity means that $x_i$ is a root of $P_{j-1}$ whenever $i<j$. This can be achieved by taking for $P_k$ the product $(X-x_1)ldots(X-x_k)$, which is monic of degree $k$. Now the diagonal entry in column$~j$ of$~M$ is $P_{j-1}[x_j]=(x_j-x_1)ldots(x_j-x_{j-1})$, and $det(V_n)$ is the product of these expressions for $j=1,ldots,n$, which is $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Although this does not really answer the question (in particular, I cannot tell whether you whether submitting the image will give you any marks), it does explain the evaluation of the determinant (and one can get an inductive proof from it if one really insists, though it would be rather similar to the answer by Bruno Joyal).
The most natural setting in which the Vandermonde matrix $V_n$ arises is the followig. Evaluating a polynomial over$~K$ in each of the points $x_1,ldots,x_n$ of $K$ gives rise to a linear map $K[X]to K^n$ i.e., the map $f:Pmapsto (P[x_1],P[x_2],ldots,P[x_n])$ (here $P[a]$ denotes the result of substituting $X:=a$ into$~P$). Then $V_n$ is the matrix of the restriction of $f$ to the subspace $defKxn{K[X]_{<n}}Kxn$ of polynomials of degree less than$~n$, relative to the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ of that subspace. Any family $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ of polynomials in which $P_i$ is monic of degree$~i$ for $i=0,1,ldots,n-1$ is also a basis of$~Kxn$, and moreover the change of basis matrix$~U$ from the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ to $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ will be upper triangular with diagonal entries all$~1$, by the definition of beig monic of degree$~i$. So $det(U)=1$, which means that the determinant of$~V_n$ is the same as that of the matrix$~M$ expressing our linear map on the basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ (which matrix equals $V_ncdot U$).
By choosing the new basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ carefully, one can arrange that the basis-changed matrix is lower triangular. Concretely column$~j$ of$~M$, which describes $f(P_{j-1})$ (since we number columns from$~1$), has as entries $(P_{j-1}[x_1],P_{j-1}[x_2],ldots,P_{j-1}[x_n])$, so lower-triangularity means that $x_i$ is a root of $P_{j-1}$ whenever $i<j$. This can be achieved by taking for $P_k$ the product $(X-x_1)ldots(X-x_k)$, which is monic of degree $k$. Now the diagonal entry in column$~j$ of$~M$ is $P_{j-1}[x_j]=(x_j-x_1)ldots(x_j-x_{j-1})$, and $det(V_n)$ is the product of these expressions for $j=1,ldots,n$, which is $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Although this does not really answer the question (in particular, I cannot tell whether you whether submitting the image will give you any marks), it does explain the evaluation of the determinant (and one can get an inductive proof from it if one really insists, though it would be rather similar to the answer by Bruno Joyal).
The most natural setting in which the Vandermonde matrix $V_n$ arises is the followig. Evaluating a polynomial over$~K$ in each of the points $x_1,ldots,x_n$ of $K$ gives rise to a linear map $K[X]to K^n$ i.e., the map $f:Pmapsto (P[x_1],P[x_2],ldots,P[x_n])$ (here $P[a]$ denotes the result of substituting $X:=a$ into$~P$). Then $V_n$ is the matrix of the restriction of $f$ to the subspace $defKxn{K[X]_{<n}}Kxn$ of polynomials of degree less than$~n$, relative to the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ of that subspace. Any family $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ of polynomials in which $P_i$ is monic of degree$~i$ for $i=0,1,ldots,n-1$ is also a basis of$~Kxn$, and moreover the change of basis matrix$~U$ from the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ to $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ will be upper triangular with diagonal entries all$~1$, by the definition of beig monic of degree$~i$. So $det(U)=1$, which means that the determinant of$~V_n$ is the same as that of the matrix$~M$ expressing our linear map on the basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ (which matrix equals $V_ncdot U$).
By choosing the new basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ carefully, one can arrange that the basis-changed matrix is lower triangular. Concretely column$~j$ of$~M$, which describes $f(P_{j-1})$ (since we number columns from$~1$), has as entries $(P_{j-1}[x_1],P_{j-1}[x_2],ldots,P_{j-1}[x_n])$, so lower-triangularity means that $x_i$ is a root of $P_{j-1}$ whenever $i<j$. This can be achieved by taking for $P_k$ the product $(X-x_1)ldots(X-x_k)$, which is monic of degree $k$. Now the diagonal entry in column$~j$ of$~M$ is $P_{j-1}[x_j]=(x_j-x_1)ldots(x_j-x_{j-1})$, and $det(V_n)$ is the product of these expressions for $j=1,ldots,n$, which is $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.
$endgroup$
Although this does not really answer the question (in particular, I cannot tell whether you whether submitting the image will give you any marks), it does explain the evaluation of the determinant (and one can get an inductive proof from it if one really insists, though it would be rather similar to the answer by Bruno Joyal).
The most natural setting in which the Vandermonde matrix $V_n$ arises is the followig. Evaluating a polynomial over$~K$ in each of the points $x_1,ldots,x_n$ of $K$ gives rise to a linear map $K[X]to K^n$ i.e., the map $f:Pmapsto (P[x_1],P[x_2],ldots,P[x_n])$ (here $P[a]$ denotes the result of substituting $X:=a$ into$~P$). Then $V_n$ is the matrix of the restriction of $f$ to the subspace $defKxn{K[X]_{<n}}Kxn$ of polynomials of degree less than$~n$, relative to the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ of that subspace. Any family $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ of polynomials in which $P_i$ is monic of degree$~i$ for $i=0,1,ldots,n-1$ is also a basis of$~Kxn$, and moreover the change of basis matrix$~U$ from the basis $[1,X,X^2,ldots,X^{n-1}]$ to $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ will be upper triangular with diagonal entries all$~1$, by the definition of beig monic of degree$~i$. So $det(U)=1$, which means that the determinant of$~V_n$ is the same as that of the matrix$~M$ expressing our linear map on the basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ (which matrix equals $V_ncdot U$).
By choosing the new basis $[P_0,P_1,ldots,P_{n-1}]$ carefully, one can arrange that the basis-changed matrix is lower triangular. Concretely column$~j$ of$~M$, which describes $f(P_{j-1})$ (since we number columns from$~1$), has as entries $(P_{j-1}[x_1],P_{j-1}[x_2],ldots,P_{j-1}[x_n])$, so lower-triangularity means that $x_i$ is a root of $P_{j-1}$ whenever $i<j$. This can be achieved by taking for $P_k$ the product $(X-x_1)ldots(X-x_k)$, which is monic of degree $k$. Now the diagonal entry in column$~j$ of$~M$ is $P_{j-1}[x_j]=(x_j-x_1)ldots(x_j-x_{j-1})$, and $det(V_n)$ is the product of these expressions for $j=1,ldots,n$, which is $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.
edited Dec 10 '18 at 9:38
answered Dec 6 '18 at 21:35
Marc van LeeuwenMarc van Leeuwen
86.7k5107222
86.7k5107222
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f525334%2fvandermonde-determinant-by-induction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
There's a nice non-inductive proof. Would that work for you?
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
@Marie only for my curiosity, the question says "Show using induction". I am of course curious.
$endgroup$
– Alec Teal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:38
$begingroup$
Actually, my memory tricked me. There is an induction. I'm posting it below.
$endgroup$
– Bruno Joyal
Oct 14 '13 at 2:52
$begingroup$
ProofWiki has two proofs using mathematical induction.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Oct 14 '13 at 6:42