# Finding the determinant of a matrix using determinant properties

Watch
Announcements

Hi! I have been having some trouble in finding the determinant of matrix A in this Q

Which relevant determinant property should I make use of to help me find the determinant of matrix A and maybe matrix B also

This is what I have tried for matrix A (using addition property) so far but it's not much help really

Any help would be great! Thanks

Which relevant determinant property should I make use of to help me find the determinant of matrix A and maybe matrix B also

This is what I have tried for matrix A (using addition property) so far but it's not much help really

Any help would be great! Thanks

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#2

(Original post by

Hi! I have been having some trouble in finding the determinant of matrix A in this Q

Which relevant determinant property should I make use of to help me find the determinant of matrix A and maybe matrix B also

This is what I have tried for matrix A (using addition property) so far but it's not much help really

Any help would be great! Thanks

**Yatayyat**)Hi! I have been having some trouble in finding the determinant of matrix A in this Q

Which relevant determinant property should I make use of to help me find the determinant of matrix A and maybe matrix B also

This is what I have tried for matrix A (using addition property) so far but it's not much help really

Any help would be great! Thanks

0

reply

Report

#3

**Yatayyat**)

Hi! I have been having some trouble in finding the determinant of matrix A in this Q

Which relevant determinant property should I make use of to help me find the determinant of matrix A and maybe matrix B also

This is what I have tried for matrix A (using addition property) so far but it's not much help really

Any help would be great! Thanks

Not the best method to use to start, IMO, but it does lead to an elegant solution. Try flipping the rows/columns of the 2nd determinant so that it looks like the first.

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#4

The key rule is that adding a multiple of a row to a different row doesn't change the determinant.

A corollary is that if two rows are a multiple of each other the determinant is 0. (because you could use the first rule to reduce one row to all zeroes, and then expand along that row to evaluate the determinant).

This sorts the first matrix out very quickly. 2nd one looks a bit more tricky.

A corollary is that if two rows are a multiple of each other the determinant is 0. (because you could use the first rule to reduce one row to all zeroes, and then expand along that row to evaluate the determinant).

This sorts the first matrix out very quickly. 2nd one looks a bit more tricky.

0

reply

Report

#5

(Original post by

Not the best method to use to start, IMO, but it does lead to an elegant solution. Try flipping the rows/columns of the 2nd determinant so that it looks like the first.

**ghostwalker**)Not the best method to use to start, IMO, but it does lead to an elegant solution. Try flipping the rows/columns of the 2nd determinant so that it looks like the first.

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#6

(Original post by

Any luck with B? Blasting the algebra gives a "nice" expression, but a nice expression that feels like it would be hard to get by fiddling with row-column ops.

**DFranklin**)Any luck with B? Blasting the algebra gives a "nice" expression, but a nice expression that feels like it would be hard to get by fiddling with row-column ops.

0

reply

**ghostwalker**)

Not the best method to use to start, IMO, but it does lead to an elegant solution. Try flipping the rows/columns of the 2nd determinant so that it looks like the first.

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#8

(Original post by

How does making the 2nd determinant look like the 1st determinant (via swapping rows/columns around) help if we don't know how to work out the determinant of the 1st?

**Yatayyat**)How does making the 2nd determinant look like the 1st determinant (via swapping rows/columns around) help if we don't know how to work out the determinant of the 1st?

0

reply

(Original post by

We established that the first determinant is 0.

**MarkFromWales**)We established that the first determinant is 0.

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#10

**Yatayyat**)

How does making the 2nd determinant look like the 1st determinant (via swapping rows/columns around) help if we don't know how to work out the determinant of the 1st?

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

Add rows 3 and 2 to 1, take out the factor, then blast.

**ghostwalker**)Add rows 3 and 2 to 1, take out the factor, then blast.

It does factor as for the typical value of omega, so I suspect there's some "pure" method if you're sufficiently sneaky.

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#12

(Original post by

Im confused how did you figure it was 0? by which property?

**Yatayyat**)Im confused how did you figure it was 0? by which property?

0

reply

(Original post by

If you've done it correctly you don't need to work out any determinants.

**ghostwalker**)If you've done it correctly you don't need to work out any determinants.

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#14

(Original post by

DFranklin suggested that I somehow add a multiple of a row to a different row. From that do I need to somehow form 2 equivalent rows which then means the determinant is zero?

**Yatayyat**)DFranklin suggested that I somehow add a multiple of a row to a different row. From that do I need to somehow form 2 equivalent rows which then means the determinant is zero?

Add row 2 to row 1.

Multiply row 3 by x+y+z.

So now rows 1 and 3 are identical.

Subtract row 3 from row 1 to get a zero row.

1

reply

Report

#15

(Original post by

PRSOM. Feels it's fairly spoiler free to say that:

It does factor as for the typical value of omega, so I suspect there's some "pure" method if you're sufficiently sneaky.

**DFranklin**)PRSOM. Feels it's fairly spoiler free to say that:

It does factor as for the typical value of omega, so I suspect there's some "pure" method if you're sufficiently sneaky.

Adding to my prev. suggestion:

Spoiler:

we can then reduce a row to 1 0 0 , and no blasting required.

Show

we can then reduce a row to 1 0 0 , and no blasting required.

0

reply

Report

#16

(Original post by

Considered as a polynomial is x or y perhaps, though it would be difficult to spot (for me at least).

Adding to my prev. suggestion:

**ghostwalker**)Considered as a polynomial is x or y perhaps, though it would be difficult to spot (for me at least).

Adding to my prev. suggestion:

Spoiler:

we can then reduce a row to 1 0 0 , and no blasting required.

Show

we can then reduce a row to 1 0 0 , and no blasting required.

0

reply

(Original post by

Here's how I'd do it.

Add row 2 to row 1.

Multiply row 3 by x+y+z.

So now rows 1 and 3 are identical.

Subtract row 3 from row 1 to get a zero row.

**MarkFromWales**)Here's how I'd do it.

Add row 2 to row 1.

Multiply row 3 by x+y+z.

So now rows 1 and 3 are identical.

Subtract row 3 from row 1 to get a zero row.

I could even skip the last step because it's a known fact that 2 equal rows would give a zero determinant from what I saw in my notes, but making a row filled with zero elements would also give a zero determinant

0

reply

Advertisement

Report

#18

(Original post by

Thank you this makes sense to me from what I followed from your steps

I could even skip the last step because it's a known fact that 2 equal rows would give a zero determinant from what I saw in my notes, but making a row filled with zero elements would also give a zero determinant

**Yatayyat**)Thank you this makes sense to me from what I followed from your steps

I could even skip the last step because it's a known fact that 2 equal rows would give a zero determinant from what I saw in my notes, but making a row filled with zero elements would also give a zero determinant

0

reply

Report

#19

(Original post by

I found "just expand the original matrix" the easiest approach by quite a long way; to be honest I gave up on reducing a row to 1 0 0, although that's somewhat limitations of trying to solve based solely on what I can type quickly into the TSR reply window. As for the factorizing, I'd seen it somewhere before I think.

**DFranklin**)I found "just expand the original matrix" the easiest approach by quite a long way; to be honest I gave up on reducing a row to 1 0 0, although that's somewhat limitations of trying to solve based solely on what I can type quickly into the TSR reply window. As for the factorizing, I'd seen it somewhere before I think.

Spoiler:

2(x^3+y^3)

Show

2(x^3+y^3)

I worked from my reduction, rather than yours.

0

reply

Report

#20

(Original post by

Unless I'm mistaken, this whole thing reduces to

I worked from my reduction, rather than yours.

**ghostwalker**)Unless I'm mistaken, this whole thing reduces to

Spoiler:

2(x^3+y^3)

Show

2(x^3+y^3)

I worked from my reduction, rather than yours.

0

reply

X

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top