6

Horn and Johnson in "Matrix Analysis" leave as a exercise this proof:

Let A be a real matrix with characteristic polynomial $p(\lambda)$ where $$p(\lambda) = \lambda^n + c_{1}\lambda^{n-1} + c_2\lambda^{n-2}+\cdots+c_n.$$ Let $E_k = \sum C_{kk}$ where $C_{kk}$ means a $k$-by-$k$ principal minor of $A$, and the summation is over all $k$-by-$k$ principal minors. Then, $$p(\lambda) = \lambda^n + E_1\lambda^{n-1}+E_2\lambda^{n-2}+\cdots+E_n.$$

The authors say that this can be proved by mathematical induction, using the Laplace expansion.

I have written out the base case and the induction hypothesis. My assumption is that the induction is on the dimension of the matrix, although now I am not sure at this point as I don't know what to do from here.

Could anyone give me a hint or help as to what I should do next?

tharvey
  • 137
  • what is the correct statement for $n=2?$ – Will Jagy Jan 26 '17 at 23:12
  • oh, here the word should be principal – Will Jagy Jan 26 '17 at 23:13
  • Consider for example a $5 \times 5$ matrix: let us consideer for example the terms $a\lambda^3$ in the expansion of $\det(A-\lambda I)$for example come from selecting $3$ times a term in the diagonal $a_{ii}-\lambda$ and $2$ times elements that are not on the diagonal. The number of ways one can do that will lead to the expansion of different principal minors. – Jean Marie Jan 26 '17 at 23:35
  • @JeanMarie while I can see how this would work, it doesn't use Laplace expansion, which is ok, but I just curious how it is suppose to factor in. Also I guess I don't understand how to make then inductive step, not so much that yes you can figure this out combinatorially. – tharvey Jan 27 '17 at 05:20

1 Answers1

1

Your question amounts to prove that the determinant of the matrix $A-\lambda E$ has the form:

$$ p(\lambda) = (-1)^n\lambda^n+E_1\lambda^{n-1}+E_2\lambda^{n-2}+ \dots +E_{n-1}\lambda + E_n$$

Please notice the $(-1)^n$ sign in front of the first $\lambda$ that is originally missing in your question but which is crucial for the theorem to be proved.

As correctly suggested by Horn and Johnson, the above can be proved by using mathematical induction (on the size of square matrix A) applying the Laplace expansion in the inductive step as follows:

Base case $size(A)=2$ (we omit $n=1$ being trivial)

Consider the determinant of an $2x2$ matrix $\det(A-\lambda E)$ $$ \begin{vmatrix} a-\lambda & b \\ d & e-\lambda \\ \end{vmatrix} $$ If we consider $\det(A-\lambda E)$ as follows $$ \begin{vmatrix} a-\lambda & b+0\\ d+0 & e-\lambda \\ \end{vmatrix} $$ we can see each column of $\det(A-\lambda E)$ as a linear combination of two columns of numbers and, therefore, we can apply the linear property of determinants by "separating out the powers of $\lambda$" (as illustrated in https://math.stackexchange.com/a/144130/557814) by obtaining: $$ \begin{vmatrix} a-\lambda & b \\ c & d-\lambda \end{vmatrix} = \begin{vmatrix} a & b \\ c & d-\lambda \end{vmatrix} + \begin{vmatrix} -\lambda & b \\ 0 & d-\lambda \end{vmatrix} = \begin{vmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{vmatrix} + %% \begin{vmatrix} a & 0 \\ c & -\lambda \end{vmatrix} + %% \begin{vmatrix} -\lambda & b \\ 0 & d \end{vmatrix} + \begin{vmatrix} -\lambda & 0 \\ 0 & -\lambda \end{vmatrix} = \\ (-1)^2\lambda^2 +E_1\lambda{2-1}+E_2 $$

Inductive step (size(A) $n$ assuming the for matrixes with size $n-1$ the hypothesis is true)

Consider the following determinant: $$ \begin{vmatrix} a_{1,1}-\lambda & a_{1,2} & \dots & a_{1,n-1} & a_{1,n} \\ a_{2,1} & a_{2,2}-\lambda & \dots & a_{2,n-1} & a_{2,n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \dots & \vdots & \vdots \\ a_{n-1,1} & a_{n-1,2} & \dots & a_{n-1,n-1}-\lambda & a_{n-1,n} \\ a_{n,1} & a_{n,2} & \dots & a_{n,n-1} & a_{n,n} - \lambda \\ \end{vmatrix} $$ Now, by applying the linear property of determinants (as done the base case) we have: $$ \begin{vmatrix} a_{1,1}-\lambda & a_{1,2} & \dots & a_{1,n-1} & a_{1,n} \\ a_{2,1} & a_{2,2}-\lambda & \dots & a_{2,n-1} & a_{2,n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \dots & \vdots & \vdots \\ a_{n-1,1} & a_{n-1,2} & \dots & a_{n-1,n-1}-\lambda & a_{n-1,n} \\ a_{n,1} & a_{n,2} & \dots & a_{n,n-1} & a_{n,n} - \lambda \\ \end{vmatrix} = \\ \begin{vmatrix} a_{1,1} & a_{1,2} & \dots & a_{1,n-1} & a_{1,n} \\ a_{2,1} & a_{2,2} & \dots & a_{2,n-1} & a_{2,n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \dots & \vdots & \vdots \\ a_{n-1,1} & a_{n-1,2} & \dots & a_{n-1,n-1} & a_{n-1,n} \\ a_{n,1} & a_{n,2} & \dots & a_{n,n-1} & a_{n,n}\\ \end{vmatrix} + \begin{vmatrix} a_{1,1}-\lambda & a_{1,2} & \dots & a_{1,n-1} & 0 \\ a_{2,1} & a_{2,2}-\lambda & \dots & a_{2,n-1} & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \dots & \vdots & \vdots \\ a_{n-1,1} & a_{n-1,2} & \dots & a_{n-1,n-1}-\lambda & 0 \\ a_{n,1} & a_{n,2} & \dots & a_{n,n-1} & - \lambda \\ \end{vmatrix} $$ Now, by applying the Laplace expansion on the last column of the second determinant in the above formula we obtain: $$ \det(A) -\lambda \det(M_{n,n}-\lambda E) $$ where $M_{n,n}$ is the matrix that results by deleting the $n$th row and column from $A$. But the above, by the inductive hypothesis equals to: $$ \det(A) -\lambda[(-1)^{n-1}\lambda^{n-1}+E_1\lambda^{(n-1)-1}+E_2\lambda^{(n-1)-2}+\dots+E_{n-1})] = \\ (-1)^{n}\lambda^n +E_1\lambda^{n-1}+E_2\lambda^{n-2}+\dots+E_{n-1}\lambda+E_n = p(\lambda) $$

QED

  • 4
    In the inductive step the left matrix has no lambdas left. I don't see how this follows, since at first there should appear a matrix having lambdas along the diagonal except at the $a_{nn}$ entry, if we use linearity in the last column. It seems to me that there are some quite important steps missing? – T'x Jan 25 '19 at 18:07
  • It is not about the calculations.. It is about the dimensional of the matrix..calculations are true but the problem still unsolved because the elements of the matrix $A_{n,n}$ does not be the same elements of the matrix $M_{n,n}$.. I mean this is true for the fixed matrix that we adding a row and column for it with out change its elements.. For orthugonal matrices, an orthogonal $n\times n$ matrix does not introduced by itself after deleting the last row and columns. This means that $m_{1,1}\neq a_{1,1}$ in general. – M. H. Aug 16 '20 at 17:31
  • and the inductive hypothesis could not be applied. – M. H. Aug 16 '20 at 17:33