Vandermonde determinant by induction












18












$begingroup$


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)



How I did it










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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
















18












$begingroup$


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)



How I did it










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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














18












18








18


6



$begingroup$


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)



How I did it










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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)



How I did it







linear-algebra induction determinant






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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














  • 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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















27












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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



















13












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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





















0












$begingroup$

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 $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    27












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
















    27












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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














    27












    27








    27





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jul 12 '15 at 13:08









    darij grinberg

    10.5k33062




    10.5k33062










    answered Oct 14 '13 at 3:11









    Pedro TamaroffPedro 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


















    • $begingroup$
      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











    13












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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


















    13












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
















    13












    13








    13





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    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




















    • $begingroup$
      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













    0












    $begingroup$

    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 $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      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 $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        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 $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        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 $prod_{j=1}^nprod_{i=1}^{j-1}(x_j-x_i)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_j-x_i)$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 10 '18 at 9:38

























        answered Dec 6 '18 at 21:35









        Marc van LeeuwenMarc van Leeuwen

        86.7k5107222




        86.7k5107222






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bundesstraße 106

            Verónica Boquete

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten