Certain matrices of interesting determinant












9














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
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$











share|cite|improve this question


















  • 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
















9














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
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$











share|cite|improve this question


















  • 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














9












9








9


2





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
$$det(M_{2n})=(-1)^nbinom{2n}n^22^{n(n-3)}.$$











share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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














  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















14














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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • That's very nice, thanks.
    – T. Amdeberhan
    Dec 17 '18 at 18:56



















2














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.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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













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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









14














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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • That's very nice, thanks.
    – T. Amdeberhan
    Dec 17 '18 at 18:56
















14














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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • That's very nice, thanks.
    – T. Amdeberhan
    Dec 17 '18 at 18:56














14












14








14






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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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











2














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.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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


















2














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.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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
















2












2








2






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.






share|cite|improve this answer












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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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




















  • 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




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]