Certain matrices of interesting determinant
Let $M_n$ be the $ntimes n$ matrix with entries
$$binom{i}{2j}+binom{j}{2i}, qquad text{for $1leq i,jleq n$}.$$
QUESTION. Is this true? There is some evidence. The determinant $det(M_{2n+1})=0$ and
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$
linear-algebra determinants elementary-proofs
add a comment |
Let $M_n$ be the $ntimes n$ matrix with entries
$$binom{i}{2j}+binom{j}{2i}, qquad text{for $1leq i,jleq n$}.$$
QUESTION. Is this true? There is some evidence. The determinant $det(M_{2n+1})=0$ and
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$
linear-algebra determinants elementary-proofs
6
The odd case is easy because $M_{2n-1}$ has an $n times n$ block of zeros at bottom right. In the even case, $M_{2n}$ still has that $n times n$ block of zeros, so its determinant is $(-1)^n$ times the product of the determinants of the $n times n$ blocks at top right and bottom left, which are equal because they are each other's transpose. So it comes down to a determinant of $i choose 2j$ for $i in [n-1,2n]$ and $j in [1,n]$, which must be known.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 5:29
2
@NoamD.Elkies typo: $iin [n+1,2n]$
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 6:31
Right, thanks. Alas it is long after the 5-minute window for editing comments.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 15:35
@NoamD.Elkies: Good observation. Thanks!
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
Let $M_n$ be the $ntimes n$ matrix with entries
$$binom{i}{2j}+binom{j}{2i}, qquad text{for $1leq i,jleq n$}.$$
QUESTION. Is this true? There is some evidence. The determinant $det(M_{2n+1})=0$ and
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$
linear-algebra determinants elementary-proofs
Let $M_n$ be the $ntimes n$ matrix with entries
$$binom{i}{2j}+binom{j}{2i}, qquad text{for $1leq i,jleq n$}.$$
QUESTION. Is this true? There is some evidence. The determinant $det(M_{2n+1})=0$ and
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$
linear-algebra determinants elementary-proofs
linear-algebra determinants elementary-proofs
asked Dec 17 '18 at 5:13
T. AmdeberhanT. Amdeberhan
17.1k228126
17.1k228126
6
The odd case is easy because $M_{2n-1}$ has an $n times n$ block of zeros at bottom right. In the even case, $M_{2n}$ still has that $n times n$ block of zeros, so its determinant is $(-1)^n$ times the product of the determinants of the $n times n$ blocks at top right and bottom left, which are equal because they are each other's transpose. So it comes down to a determinant of $i choose 2j$ for $i in [n-1,2n]$ and $j in [1,n]$, which must be known.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 5:29
2
@NoamD.Elkies typo: $iin [n+1,2n]$
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 6:31
Right, thanks. Alas it is long after the 5-minute window for editing comments.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 15:35
@NoamD.Elkies: Good observation. Thanks!
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
6
The odd case is easy because $M_{2n-1}$ has an $n times n$ block of zeros at bottom right. In the even case, $M_{2n}$ still has that $n times n$ block of zeros, so its determinant is $(-1)^n$ times the product of the determinants of the $n times n$ blocks at top right and bottom left, which are equal because they are each other's transpose. So it comes down to a determinant of $i choose 2j$ for $i in [n-1,2n]$ and $j in [1,n]$, which must be known.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 5:29
2
@NoamD.Elkies typo: $iin [n+1,2n]$
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 6:31
Right, thanks. Alas it is long after the 5-minute window for editing comments.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 15:35
@NoamD.Elkies: Good observation. Thanks!
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
6
6
The odd case is easy because $M_{2n-1}$ has an $n times n$ block of zeros at bottom right. In the even case, $M_{2n}$ still has that $n times n$ block of zeros, so its determinant is $(-1)^n$ times the product of the determinants of the $n times n$ blocks at top right and bottom left, which are equal because they are each other's transpose. So it comes down to a determinant of $i choose 2j$ for $i in [n-1,2n]$ and $j in [1,n]$, which must be known.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 5:29
The odd case is easy because $M_{2n-1}$ has an $n times n$ block of zeros at bottom right. In the even case, $M_{2n}$ still has that $n times n$ block of zeros, so its determinant is $(-1)^n$ times the product of the determinants of the $n times n$ blocks at top right and bottom left, which are equal because they are each other's transpose. So it comes down to a determinant of $i choose 2j$ for $i in [n-1,2n]$ and $j in [1,n]$, which must be known.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 5:29
2
2
@NoamD.Elkies typo: $iin [n+1,2n]$
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 6:31
@NoamD.Elkies typo: $iin [n+1,2n]$
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 6:31
Right, thanks. Alas it is long after the 5-minute window for editing comments.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 15:35
Right, thanks. Alas it is long after the 5-minute window for editing comments.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 15:35
@NoamD.Elkies: Good observation. Thanks!
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
@NoamD.Elkies: Good observation. Thanks!
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Noam Elkies in the comments reduces the problem to the identity $$detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=binom{2n}n2^{n(n-3)/2}.$$ In general the determinant $binom{N+i}{c_j+j}$, $i,j=0,dots,n-1$ for integers $0leqslant c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}leqslant N$ may be calculated by the following trick.
Consider the Young diagrams $lambda,mu$ with rows length $c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}$ and $N,N,dots,N$ ($n$ rows in total) respectively. Count the skew Young tableaux of the shape $musetminus lambda$. On one hand, the number of such tableaux is known (see Okounkov, A., Olshanski, G.: Shifted Schur functions. St. Petersburg Math. J. 9(2), 73–146 (1997), Theorem 8.1) to be equal to $$frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N+i)!}cdot prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (c_i+i)!cdot detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}.$$
On the other hand, it is the same as the number of usual Young tableaux of the shape $(N-c_0,dots,N-c_{n-1})$, which may be evaluated by Hook Length Formula as
$$
frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).
$$
Therefore
$$
detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=\
prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i)!}{(c_i+i)!(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).quad (*)
$$
It remains to substitute $N=n+1$ and $c_i=i+2$.
We get $$prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i<j}(j-i)=prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i=0}^{n-1} i!$$
and $(*)$ rewrites as
$$
detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=
frac{1!2!dots (n-1)! (n+1)!dots (2n)!}
{2!4!dots (2n)! 2! 4!dots (2n-2)!}2^{n(n-1)/2}.
$$
Replace $2!4!dots (2n)!$ to $$2cdot 1!cdot 4cdot 3!cdot 6cdot 5!cdot ldotscdot (2n)cdot(2n-1)!=\=2^nn! 1!3!dots (2n-1)!.$$ We get $frac{(2n)!}{n!n!} 2^{n(n-3)/2}$
as supposed.
Remark: of course the above determinant is a polynomial in $N$, and if we replace $(N+i)!/(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!$ in $(*)$ by $c_{n-i-1}! binom{N+i}{c_{n-i-1}}$, the formula becomes true for arbitrary $N$, not necessarily positive integer.
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
As a follow-up on Fedor's wonderful proof, I would like to pen down just a comment.
Let's replace $c_j+j$ by $u_j$ and treat $N$ as an indeterminate. Then, for non-negative integers $a$ and $b$, we have the determinantal evaluation
$$detleft(binom{N+i+a}{u_{j+b}}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}
=prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i+a)!}{(N+n-a-1)!}binom{N+n+a-1}{u_{i+b}}prod_{i<j}^{0,n-1}(u_{j+b}-u_{i+b}).$$
The proof follows from the method of condensation; see Desnanot–Jacobi identity.
Remark. The introduction (or generalization) of the parameters $a$ and $b$ is what makes above-mentioned method work, effectively.
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
|
show 1 more 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: "504"
};
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f318826%2fcertain-matrices-of-interesting-determinant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Noam Elkies in the comments reduces the problem to the identity $$detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=binom{2n}n2^{n(n-3)/2}.$$ In general the determinant $binom{N+i}{c_j+j}$, $i,j=0,dots,n-1$ for integers $0leqslant c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}leqslant N$ may be calculated by the following trick.
Consider the Young diagrams $lambda,mu$ with rows length $c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}$ and $N,N,dots,N$ ($n$ rows in total) respectively. Count the skew Young tableaux of the shape $musetminus lambda$. On one hand, the number of such tableaux is known (see Okounkov, A., Olshanski, G.: Shifted Schur functions. St. Petersburg Math. J. 9(2), 73–146 (1997), Theorem 8.1) to be equal to $$frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N+i)!}cdot prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (c_i+i)!cdot detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}.$$
On the other hand, it is the same as the number of usual Young tableaux of the shape $(N-c_0,dots,N-c_{n-1})$, which may be evaluated by Hook Length Formula as
$$
frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).
$$
Therefore
$$
detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=\
prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i)!}{(c_i+i)!(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).quad (*)
$$
It remains to substitute $N=n+1$ and $c_i=i+2$.
We get $$prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i<j}(j-i)=prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i=0}^{n-1} i!$$
and $(*)$ rewrites as
$$
detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=
frac{1!2!dots (n-1)! (n+1)!dots (2n)!}
{2!4!dots (2n)! 2! 4!dots (2n-2)!}2^{n(n-1)/2}.
$$
Replace $2!4!dots (2n)!$ to $$2cdot 1!cdot 4cdot 3!cdot 6cdot 5!cdot ldotscdot (2n)cdot(2n-1)!=\=2^nn! 1!3!dots (2n-1)!.$$ We get $frac{(2n)!}{n!n!} 2^{n(n-3)/2}$
as supposed.
Remark: of course the above determinant is a polynomial in $N$, and if we replace $(N+i)!/(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!$ in $(*)$ by $c_{n-i-1}! binom{N+i}{c_{n-i-1}}$, the formula becomes true for arbitrary $N$, not necessarily positive integer.
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
Noam Elkies in the comments reduces the problem to the identity $$detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=binom{2n}n2^{n(n-3)/2}.$$ In general the determinant $binom{N+i}{c_j+j}$, $i,j=0,dots,n-1$ for integers $0leqslant c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}leqslant N$ may be calculated by the following trick.
Consider the Young diagrams $lambda,mu$ with rows length $c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}$ and $N,N,dots,N$ ($n$ rows in total) respectively. Count the skew Young tableaux of the shape $musetminus lambda$. On one hand, the number of such tableaux is known (see Okounkov, A., Olshanski, G.: Shifted Schur functions. St. Petersburg Math. J. 9(2), 73–146 (1997), Theorem 8.1) to be equal to $$frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N+i)!}cdot prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (c_i+i)!cdot detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}.$$
On the other hand, it is the same as the number of usual Young tableaux of the shape $(N-c_0,dots,N-c_{n-1})$, which may be evaluated by Hook Length Formula as
$$
frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).
$$
Therefore
$$
detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=\
prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i)!}{(c_i+i)!(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).quad (*)
$$
It remains to substitute $N=n+1$ and $c_i=i+2$.
We get $$prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i<j}(j-i)=prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i=0}^{n-1} i!$$
and $(*)$ rewrites as
$$
detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=
frac{1!2!dots (n-1)! (n+1)!dots (2n)!}
{2!4!dots (2n)! 2! 4!dots (2n-2)!}2^{n(n-1)/2}.
$$
Replace $2!4!dots (2n)!$ to $$2cdot 1!cdot 4cdot 3!cdot 6cdot 5!cdot ldotscdot (2n)cdot(2n-1)!=\=2^nn! 1!3!dots (2n-1)!.$$ We get $frac{(2n)!}{n!n!} 2^{n(n-3)/2}$
as supposed.
Remark: of course the above determinant is a polynomial in $N$, and if we replace $(N+i)!/(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!$ in $(*)$ by $c_{n-i-1}! binom{N+i}{c_{n-i-1}}$, the formula becomes true for arbitrary $N$, not necessarily positive integer.
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
Noam Elkies in the comments reduces the problem to the identity $$detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=binom{2n}n2^{n(n-3)/2}.$$ In general the determinant $binom{N+i}{c_j+j}$, $i,j=0,dots,n-1$ for integers $0leqslant c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}leqslant N$ may be calculated by the following trick.
Consider the Young diagrams $lambda,mu$ with rows length $c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}$ and $N,N,dots,N$ ($n$ rows in total) respectively. Count the skew Young tableaux of the shape $musetminus lambda$. On one hand, the number of such tableaux is known (see Okounkov, A., Olshanski, G.: Shifted Schur functions. St. Petersburg Math. J. 9(2), 73–146 (1997), Theorem 8.1) to be equal to $$frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N+i)!}cdot prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (c_i+i)!cdot detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}.$$
On the other hand, it is the same as the number of usual Young tableaux of the shape $(N-c_0,dots,N-c_{n-1})$, which may be evaluated by Hook Length Formula as
$$
frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).
$$
Therefore
$$
detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=\
prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i)!}{(c_i+i)!(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).quad (*)
$$
It remains to substitute $N=n+1$ and $c_i=i+2$.
We get $$prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i<j}(j-i)=prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i=0}^{n-1} i!$$
and $(*)$ rewrites as
$$
detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=
frac{1!2!dots (n-1)! (n+1)!dots (2n)!}
{2!4!dots (2n)! 2! 4!dots (2n-2)!}2^{n(n-1)/2}.
$$
Replace $2!4!dots (2n)!$ to $$2cdot 1!cdot 4cdot 3!cdot 6cdot 5!cdot ldotscdot (2n)cdot(2n-1)!=\=2^nn! 1!3!dots (2n-1)!.$$ We get $frac{(2n)!}{n!n!} 2^{n(n-3)/2}$
as supposed.
Remark: of course the above determinant is a polynomial in $N$, and if we replace $(N+i)!/(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!$ in $(*)$ by $c_{n-i-1}! binom{N+i}{c_{n-i-1}}$, the formula becomes true for arbitrary $N$, not necessarily positive integer.
Noam Elkies in the comments reduces the problem to the identity $$detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=binom{2n}n2^{n(n-3)/2}.$$ In general the determinant $binom{N+i}{c_j+j}$, $i,j=0,dots,n-1$ for integers $0leqslant c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}leqslant N$ may be calculated by the following trick.
Consider the Young diagrams $lambda,mu$ with rows length $c_0leqslant c_1leqslant dots leqslant c_{n-1}$ and $N,N,dots,N$ ($n$ rows in total) respectively. Count the skew Young tableaux of the shape $musetminus lambda$. On one hand, the number of such tableaux is known (see Okounkov, A., Olshanski, G.: Shifted Schur functions. St. Petersburg Math. J. 9(2), 73–146 (1997), Theorem 8.1) to be equal to $$frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N+i)!}cdot prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (c_i+i)!cdot detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}.$$
On the other hand, it is the same as the number of usual Young tableaux of the shape $(N-c_0,dots,N-c_{n-1})$, which may be evaluated by Hook Length Formula as
$$
frac{(Ncdot n-sum c_i)!}{prod_{i=0}^{n-1} (N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).
$$
Therefore
$$
detleft(binom{N+i}{c_j+j}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=\
prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i)!}{(c_i+i)!(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!}cdot prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i).quad (*)
$$
It remains to substitute $N=n+1$ and $c_i=i+2$.
We get $$prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i<j}(j-i)=prod_{i<j} (c_j+j-c_i-i)=2^{n(n-1)/2}prod_{i=0}^{n-1} i!$$
and $(*)$ rewrites as
$$
detleft(binom{(n+1)+i}{2j+2}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=
frac{1!2!dots (n-1)! (n+1)!dots (2n)!}
{2!4!dots (2n)! 2! 4!dots (2n-2)!}2^{n(n-1)/2}.
$$
Replace $2!4!dots (2n)!$ to $$2cdot 1!cdot 4cdot 3!cdot 6cdot 5!cdot ldotscdot (2n)cdot(2n-1)!=\=2^nn! 1!3!dots (2n-1)!.$$ We get $frac{(2n)!}{n!n!} 2^{n(n-3)/2}$
as supposed.
Remark: of course the above determinant is a polynomial in $N$, and if we replace $(N+i)!/(N-c_{n-i-1}+i)!$ in $(*)$ by $c_{n-i-1}! binom{N+i}{c_{n-i-1}}$, the formula becomes true for arbitrary $N$, not necessarily positive integer.
edited Dec 17 '18 at 11:55
answered Dec 17 '18 at 7:43
Fedor PetrovFedor Petrov
47.7k5111223
47.7k5111223
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
That's very nice, thanks.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
add a comment |
As a follow-up on Fedor's wonderful proof, I would like to pen down just a comment.
Let's replace $c_j+j$ by $u_j$ and treat $N$ as an indeterminate. Then, for non-negative integers $a$ and $b$, we have the determinantal evaluation
$$detleft(binom{N+i+a}{u_{j+b}}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}
=prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i+a)!}{(N+n-a-1)!}binom{N+n+a-1}{u_{i+b}}prod_{i<j}^{0,n-1}(u_{j+b}-u_{i+b}).$$
The proof follows from the method of condensation; see Desnanot–Jacobi identity.
Remark. The introduction (or generalization) of the parameters $a$ and $b$ is what makes above-mentioned method work, effectively.
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
|
show 1 more comment
As a follow-up on Fedor's wonderful proof, I would like to pen down just a comment.
Let's replace $c_j+j$ by $u_j$ and treat $N$ as an indeterminate. Then, for non-negative integers $a$ and $b$, we have the determinantal evaluation
$$detleft(binom{N+i+a}{u_{j+b}}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}
=prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i+a)!}{(N+n-a-1)!}binom{N+n+a-1}{u_{i+b}}prod_{i<j}^{0,n-1}(u_{j+b}-u_{i+b}).$$
The proof follows from the method of condensation; see Desnanot–Jacobi identity.
Remark. The introduction (or generalization) of the parameters $a$ and $b$ is what makes above-mentioned method work, effectively.
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
|
show 1 more comment
As a follow-up on Fedor's wonderful proof, I would like to pen down just a comment.
Let's replace $c_j+j$ by $u_j$ and treat $N$ as an indeterminate. Then, for non-negative integers $a$ and $b$, we have the determinantal evaluation
$$detleft(binom{N+i+a}{u_{j+b}}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}
=prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i+a)!}{(N+n-a-1)!}binom{N+n+a-1}{u_{i+b}}prod_{i<j}^{0,n-1}(u_{j+b}-u_{i+b}).$$
The proof follows from the method of condensation; see Desnanot–Jacobi identity.
Remark. The introduction (or generalization) of the parameters $a$ and $b$ is what makes above-mentioned method work, effectively.
As a follow-up on Fedor's wonderful proof, I would like to pen down just a comment.
Let's replace $c_j+j$ by $u_j$ and treat $N$ as an indeterminate. Then, for non-negative integers $a$ and $b$, we have the determinantal evaluation
$$detleft(binom{N+i+a}{u_{j+b}}right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1}
=prod_{i=0}^{n-1}frac{(N+i+a)!}{(N+n-a-1)!}binom{N+n+a-1}{u_{i+b}}prod_{i<j}^{0,n-1}(u_{j+b}-u_{i+b}).$$
The proof follows from the method of condensation; see Desnanot–Jacobi identity.
Remark. The introduction (or generalization) of the parameters $a$ and $b$ is what makes above-mentioned method work, effectively.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 18:55
T. AmdeberhanT. Amdeberhan
17.1k228126
17.1k228126
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
|
show 1 more comment
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
are not there typos? This $u_{j+b}$ looks strange.
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:03
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
Not typo, I believe. I am just shifting by $b$. You would see that is not strange if you try to use condensation (as you move up and down in the infinite matrix).
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 19:05
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
also $N+a$ are always together except the denominator where $N-a$ appears. Is it ok?
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 19:57
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Good point. That was some annoying part that did not allow me to get further generalization of the matrices, such that $N+a+i=x_i$. On the positive side, it allows the reader to see the roles of the "shifting parameters" $a$ and $b$ with the proof.
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 21:31
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
Tewodros, is it still ok? If we replace $N$ by $N+5$ and $a$ by $a-5$ it looks like nothing except denominator changes...
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 23:58
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f318826%2fcertain-matrices-of-interesting-determinant%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
6
The odd case is easy because $M_{2n-1}$ has an $n times n$ block of zeros at bottom right. In the even case, $M_{2n}$ still has that $n times n$ block of zeros, so its determinant is $(-1)^n$ times the product of the determinants of the $n times n$ blocks at top right and bottom left, which are equal because they are each other's transpose. So it comes down to a determinant of $i choose 2j$ for $i in [n-1,2n]$ and $j in [1,n]$, which must be known.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 5:29
2
@NoamD.Elkies typo: $iin [n+1,2n]$
– Fedor Petrov
Dec 17 '18 at 6:31
Right, thanks. Alas it is long after the 5-minute window for editing comments.
– Noam D. Elkies
Dec 17 '18 at 15:35
@NoamD.Elkies: Good observation. Thanks!
– T. Amdeberhan
Dec 17 '18 at 18:56