Why does the determinant always equal zero for a square matrix of consecutive numbers?












1












$begingroup$


This works if the integers are listed in consecutive order either along the rows or columns. Why does the determinant of the square matrix always equal $0$ for $ n > 2 $?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you need dimension $n times n$ where $n ge 3.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $detleft(begin{bmatrix}1&2\3&4end{bmatrix}right)=-2$
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15
















1












$begingroup$


This works if the integers are listed in consecutive order either along the rows or columns. Why does the determinant of the square matrix always equal $0$ for $ n > 2 $?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you need dimension $n times n$ where $n ge 3.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $detleft(begin{bmatrix}1&2\3&4end{bmatrix}right)=-2$
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15














1












1








1


0



$begingroup$


This works if the integers are listed in consecutive order either along the rows or columns. Why does the determinant of the square matrix always equal $0$ for $ n > 2 $?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This works if the integers are listed in consecutive order either along the rows or columns. Why does the determinant of the square matrix always equal $0$ for $ n > 2 $?







linear-algebra matrices






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 6 at 5:48









El borito

666216




666216










asked Jan 20 '18 at 4:11









P. L.P. L.

273




273








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you need dimension $n times n$ where $n ge 3.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $detleft(begin{bmatrix}1&2\3&4end{bmatrix}right)=-2$
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you need dimension $n times n$ where $n ge 3.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $detleft(begin{bmatrix}1&2\3&4end{bmatrix}right)=-2$
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Jan 20 '18 at 4:15








3




3




$begingroup$
I think you need dimension $n times n$ where $n ge 3.$
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Jan 20 '18 at 4:15




$begingroup$
I think you need dimension $n times n$ where $n ge 3.$
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Jan 20 '18 at 4:15




5




5




$begingroup$
$detleft(begin{bmatrix}1&2\3&4end{bmatrix}right)=-2$
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 20 '18 at 4:15




$begingroup$
$detleft(begin{bmatrix}1&2\3&4end{bmatrix}right)=-2$
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Jan 20 '18 at 4:15










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

Assuming that $ngeq 3$ and the integers are placed along the rows:



$$begin{bmatrix}
1&2&3&cdots&n\
n+1&n+2&n+3&cdots&n+n\
2n+1&2n+2&2n+3&cdots&2n+n\
vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
(n-1)n+1&(n-1)n+2&(n-1)n+3&cdots&n^2
end{bmatrix}$$



Consider the second row minus the first row. It will be $[n~n~n~n~dots~n]$



Now, consider the third row minus the first row. It will be $[2n~2n~2n~2n~dots~2n]$. It is a constant multiple of another row in the matrix, and as such the rows are not linearly independent.



Worded another way, letting $R_1,R_2,R_3$ denote the first, second and third rows respectively, we have $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$, proving that they are linearly dependent on one another.



A matrix has nonzero determinant if and only if its rows are linearly independent. Since the rows are dependent on one another, the determinant must be zero.



Note: This does not work for $n=1$ or $n=2$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Jan 6 at 6:45



















5












$begingroup$

At least for 3x3, I think this is why:



We start with the generic form...
$$
left[begin{array}{ccc}
x & x+1 & x+2 \
x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
x+6 & x+7 & x+8 end{array}right]
$$

Then subtract the last row from the first...
$$
left[begin{array}{ccc}
x & x+1 & x+2 \
x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
$$

Then the second from the first...
$$
left[begin{array}{ccc}
x & x+1 & x+2 \
3 & 3 & 3 \
6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
$$

And we see clearly that the matrix is not full rank.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    For $ngt 2$, it is easy to see that $R_k=R_{k-1}+n$... Thus by doing a couple row operations (namely subtracting $R_k$ from $R_{k+1}$ for a couple different choices of $k$) we get two rows whose entries are all $n$... then subtract one of these from the other to get a row of zeros...






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      First of all it is not always true. For example determinant of $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2\3&4\ end{bmatrix} $$



      is $-2$



      When you have a larger matrix and the rows become linearly dependent due to the arrangement of consecutive numbers then the determinant is zero.



      You can see that from elementary row operations.



      Note that in general, the sum of the first row and the third row is twice the second row therefore, these three rows are linearly dependent.



      For example in $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2&3\4&5&6\7&8&9 end{bmatrix} $$
      we get
      $R_1 + R_3 =2R_2$, thus $R_1 + R_3 -2R_2 = [0,0,0]$






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
        $endgroup$
        – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
        Jan 20 '18 at 4:45










      • $begingroup$
        @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
        $endgroup$
        – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
        Jan 20 '18 at 5:12










      • $begingroup$
        My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
        $endgroup$
        – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
        Jan 20 '18 at 5:54










      • $begingroup$
        @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
        $endgroup$
        – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
        Jan 20 '18 at 6:09



















      0












      $begingroup$

      Alternatively, using arithmetic mean, for $3times 3$ matrix determinant:
      $$begin{vmatrix}
      x+1 & x+2 & x+3 \
      x+4 & x+5 & x+6 \
      x+7 & x+8 & x+9 end{vmatrix}=0,$$

      because: $C_1+C_3=2C_2$, which shows linear dependence of the column vectors.



      For $4times 4$ matrix determinant:
      $$begin{vmatrix}
      x+1 & x+2 & x+3 & x+4 \
      x+5 & x+6 & x+7 & x+8 \
      x+9 & x+10 & x+11 & x+12 end{vmatrix}=0, text{because: }
      C_1+C_4=C_2+C_3.$$



      In geneal, for $(2n+1)times (2n+1), n>0,$ matrix determinant:
      $$begin{vmatrix}
      x+1&cdots &x+(n+1) &cdots &x+(2n+1)\
      x+(2n+1)+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+2(2n+1)\
      vdots&vdots&vdots &vdots&vdots\
      x+2n(2n+1)+1&cdots &x+2n(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)^2
      end{vmatrix}=0,\
      text{because: } C_1+C_{2n+1}=C_{n+1}.$$

      Can you write the generalization for $(2n)times (2n),n>0,$ matrix determinant?






      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%2f2612982%2fwhy-does-the-determinant-always-equal-zero-for-a-square-matrix-of-consecutive-nu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        8












        $begingroup$

        Assuming that $ngeq 3$ and the integers are placed along the rows:



        $$begin{bmatrix}
        1&2&3&cdots&n\
        n+1&n+2&n+3&cdots&n+n\
        2n+1&2n+2&2n+3&cdots&2n+n\
        vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
        (n-1)n+1&(n-1)n+2&(n-1)n+3&cdots&n^2
        end{bmatrix}$$



        Consider the second row minus the first row. It will be $[n~n~n~n~dots~n]$



        Now, consider the third row minus the first row. It will be $[2n~2n~2n~2n~dots~2n]$. It is a constant multiple of another row in the matrix, and as such the rows are not linearly independent.



        Worded another way, letting $R_1,R_2,R_3$ denote the first, second and third rows respectively, we have $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$, proving that they are linearly dependent on one another.



        A matrix has nonzero determinant if and only if its rows are linearly independent. Since the rows are dependent on one another, the determinant must be zero.



        Note: This does not work for $n=1$ or $n=2$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
          $endgroup$
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Jan 6 at 6:45
















        8












        $begingroup$

        Assuming that $ngeq 3$ and the integers are placed along the rows:



        $$begin{bmatrix}
        1&2&3&cdots&n\
        n+1&n+2&n+3&cdots&n+n\
        2n+1&2n+2&2n+3&cdots&2n+n\
        vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
        (n-1)n+1&(n-1)n+2&(n-1)n+3&cdots&n^2
        end{bmatrix}$$



        Consider the second row minus the first row. It will be $[n~n~n~n~dots~n]$



        Now, consider the third row minus the first row. It will be $[2n~2n~2n~2n~dots~2n]$. It is a constant multiple of another row in the matrix, and as such the rows are not linearly independent.



        Worded another way, letting $R_1,R_2,R_3$ denote the first, second and third rows respectively, we have $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$, proving that they are linearly dependent on one another.



        A matrix has nonzero determinant if and only if its rows are linearly independent. Since the rows are dependent on one another, the determinant must be zero.



        Note: This does not work for $n=1$ or $n=2$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
          $endgroup$
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Jan 6 at 6:45














        8












        8








        8





        $begingroup$

        Assuming that $ngeq 3$ and the integers are placed along the rows:



        $$begin{bmatrix}
        1&2&3&cdots&n\
        n+1&n+2&n+3&cdots&n+n\
        2n+1&2n+2&2n+3&cdots&2n+n\
        vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
        (n-1)n+1&(n-1)n+2&(n-1)n+3&cdots&n^2
        end{bmatrix}$$



        Consider the second row minus the first row. It will be $[n~n~n~n~dots~n]$



        Now, consider the third row minus the first row. It will be $[2n~2n~2n~2n~dots~2n]$. It is a constant multiple of another row in the matrix, and as such the rows are not linearly independent.



        Worded another way, letting $R_1,R_2,R_3$ denote the first, second and third rows respectively, we have $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$, proving that they are linearly dependent on one another.



        A matrix has nonzero determinant if and only if its rows are linearly independent. Since the rows are dependent on one another, the determinant must be zero.



        Note: This does not work for $n=1$ or $n=2$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Assuming that $ngeq 3$ and the integers are placed along the rows:



        $$begin{bmatrix}
        1&2&3&cdots&n\
        n+1&n+2&n+3&cdots&n+n\
        2n+1&2n+2&2n+3&cdots&2n+n\
        vdots&vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\
        (n-1)n+1&(n-1)n+2&(n-1)n+3&cdots&n^2
        end{bmatrix}$$



        Consider the second row minus the first row. It will be $[n~n~n~n~dots~n]$



        Now, consider the third row minus the first row. It will be $[2n~2n~2n~2n~dots~2n]$. It is a constant multiple of another row in the matrix, and as such the rows are not linearly independent.



        Worded another way, letting $R_1,R_2,R_3$ denote the first, second and third rows respectively, we have $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$, proving that they are linearly dependent on one another.



        A matrix has nonzero determinant if and only if its rows are linearly independent. Since the rows are dependent on one another, the determinant must be zero.



        Note: This does not work for $n=1$ or $n=2$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 6 at 6:16









        El borito

        666216




        666216










        answered Jan 20 '18 at 4:24









        JMoravitzJMoravitz

        48.1k33886




        48.1k33886












        • $begingroup$
          The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
          $endgroup$
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Jan 6 at 6:45


















        • $begingroup$
          The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
          $endgroup$
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Jan 6 at 6:45
















        $begingroup$
        The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
        $endgroup$
        – Jyrki Lahtonen
        Jan 6 at 6:45




        $begingroup$
        The relation $R_1-2R_2+R_3=0$ holds even if the integer sequence does not start from $1$. Phrased differently, all the rows of this matrix are linear combinations of the vectors $(1,2,3,ldots,n)$ and $(1,1,1,ldots,1)$, so the rank of the matrix is two.
        $endgroup$
        – Jyrki Lahtonen
        Jan 6 at 6:45











        5












        $begingroup$

        At least for 3x3, I think this is why:



        We start with the generic form...
        $$
        left[begin{array}{ccc}
        x & x+1 & x+2 \
        x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
        x+6 & x+7 & x+8 end{array}right]
        $$

        Then subtract the last row from the first...
        $$
        left[begin{array}{ccc}
        x & x+1 & x+2 \
        x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
        6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
        $$

        Then the second from the first...
        $$
        left[begin{array}{ccc}
        x & x+1 & x+2 \
        3 & 3 & 3 \
        6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
        $$

        And we see clearly that the matrix is not full rank.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          5












          $begingroup$

          At least for 3x3, I think this is why:



          We start with the generic form...
          $$
          left[begin{array}{ccc}
          x & x+1 & x+2 \
          x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
          x+6 & x+7 & x+8 end{array}right]
          $$

          Then subtract the last row from the first...
          $$
          left[begin{array}{ccc}
          x & x+1 & x+2 \
          x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
          6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
          $$

          Then the second from the first...
          $$
          left[begin{array}{ccc}
          x & x+1 & x+2 \
          3 & 3 & 3 \
          6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
          $$

          And we see clearly that the matrix is not full rank.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$
















            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            At least for 3x3, I think this is why:



            We start with the generic form...
            $$
            left[begin{array}{ccc}
            x & x+1 & x+2 \
            x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
            x+6 & x+7 & x+8 end{array}right]
            $$

            Then subtract the last row from the first...
            $$
            left[begin{array}{ccc}
            x & x+1 & x+2 \
            x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
            6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
            $$

            Then the second from the first...
            $$
            left[begin{array}{ccc}
            x & x+1 & x+2 \
            3 & 3 & 3 \
            6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
            $$

            And we see clearly that the matrix is not full rank.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            At least for 3x3, I think this is why:



            We start with the generic form...
            $$
            left[begin{array}{ccc}
            x & x+1 & x+2 \
            x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
            x+6 & x+7 & x+8 end{array}right]
            $$

            Then subtract the last row from the first...
            $$
            left[begin{array}{ccc}
            x & x+1 & x+2 \
            x+3 & x+4 & x+5 \
            6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
            $$

            Then the second from the first...
            $$
            left[begin{array}{ccc}
            x & x+1 & x+2 \
            3 & 3 & 3 \
            6 & 6 & 6 end{array}right]
            $$

            And we see clearly that the matrix is not full rank.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jan 6 at 5:37









            El borito

            666216




            666216










            answered Jan 20 '18 at 4:23









            CampbellCampbell

            705




            705























                1












                $begingroup$

                For $ngt 2$, it is easy to see that $R_k=R_{k-1}+n$... Thus by doing a couple row operations (namely subtracting $R_k$ from $R_{k+1}$ for a couple different choices of $k$) we get two rows whose entries are all $n$... then subtract one of these from the other to get a row of zeros...






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  For $ngt 2$, it is easy to see that $R_k=R_{k-1}+n$... Thus by doing a couple row operations (namely subtracting $R_k$ from $R_{k+1}$ for a couple different choices of $k$) we get two rows whose entries are all $n$... then subtract one of these from the other to get a row of zeros...






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    For $ngt 2$, it is easy to see that $R_k=R_{k-1}+n$... Thus by doing a couple row operations (namely subtracting $R_k$ from $R_{k+1}$ for a couple different choices of $k$) we get two rows whose entries are all $n$... then subtract one of these from the other to get a row of zeros...






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    For $ngt 2$, it is easy to see that $R_k=R_{k-1}+n$... Thus by doing a couple row operations (namely subtracting $R_k$ from $R_{k+1}$ for a couple different choices of $k$) we get two rows whose entries are all $n$... then subtract one of these from the other to get a row of zeros...







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 20 '18 at 4:54









                    Chris CusterChris Custer

                    14.2k3827




                    14.2k3827























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        First of all it is not always true. For example determinant of $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2\3&4\ end{bmatrix} $$



                        is $-2$



                        When you have a larger matrix and the rows become linearly dependent due to the arrangement of consecutive numbers then the determinant is zero.



                        You can see that from elementary row operations.



                        Note that in general, the sum of the first row and the third row is twice the second row therefore, these three rows are linearly dependent.



                        For example in $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2&3\4&5&6\7&8&9 end{bmatrix} $$
                        we get
                        $R_1 + R_3 =2R_2$, thus $R_1 + R_3 -2R_2 = [0,0,0]$






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$













                        • $begingroup$
                          It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 4:45










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:12










                        • $begingroup$
                          My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:54










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 6:09
















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        First of all it is not always true. For example determinant of $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2\3&4\ end{bmatrix} $$



                        is $-2$



                        When you have a larger matrix and the rows become linearly dependent due to the arrangement of consecutive numbers then the determinant is zero.



                        You can see that from elementary row operations.



                        Note that in general, the sum of the first row and the third row is twice the second row therefore, these three rows are linearly dependent.



                        For example in $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2&3\4&5&6\7&8&9 end{bmatrix} $$
                        we get
                        $R_1 + R_3 =2R_2$, thus $R_1 + R_3 -2R_2 = [0,0,0]$






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$













                        • $begingroup$
                          It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 4:45










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:12










                        • $begingroup$
                          My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:54










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 6:09














                        0












                        0








                        0





                        $begingroup$

                        First of all it is not always true. For example determinant of $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2\3&4\ end{bmatrix} $$



                        is $-2$



                        When you have a larger matrix and the rows become linearly dependent due to the arrangement of consecutive numbers then the determinant is zero.



                        You can see that from elementary row operations.



                        Note that in general, the sum of the first row and the third row is twice the second row therefore, these three rows are linearly dependent.



                        For example in $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2&3\4&5&6\7&8&9 end{bmatrix} $$
                        we get
                        $R_1 + R_3 =2R_2$, thus $R_1 + R_3 -2R_2 = [0,0,0]$






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$



                        First of all it is not always true. For example determinant of $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2\3&4\ end{bmatrix} $$



                        is $-2$



                        When you have a larger matrix and the rows become linearly dependent due to the arrangement of consecutive numbers then the determinant is zero.



                        You can see that from elementary row operations.



                        Note that in general, the sum of the first row and the third row is twice the second row therefore, these three rows are linearly dependent.



                        For example in $$ begin{bmatrix} 1&2&3\4&5&6\7&8&9 end{bmatrix} $$
                        we get
                        $R_1 + R_3 =2R_2$, thus $R_1 + R_3 -2R_2 = [0,0,0]$







                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        edited Jan 20 '18 at 6:08

























                        answered Jan 20 '18 at 4:29









                        Mohammad Riazi-KermaniMohammad Riazi-Kermani

                        41.6k42061




                        41.6k42061












                        • $begingroup$
                          It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 4:45










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:12










                        • $begingroup$
                          My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:54










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 6:09


















                        • $begingroup$
                          It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 4:45










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:12










                        • $begingroup$
                          My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                          Jan 20 '18 at 5:54










                        • $begingroup$
                          @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                          Jan 20 '18 at 6:09
















                        $begingroup$
                        It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                        Jan 20 '18 at 4:45




                        $begingroup$
                        It would probably be useful to describe what row operations are needed to see that the determinant is zero. Otherwise, your explanation «the determinant is zero because you can generate a row of sería using row operations» applies to every matrix with zero determinant and is therefore not very useful!
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                        Jan 20 '18 at 4:45












                        $begingroup$
                        @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                        Jan 20 '18 at 5:12




                        $begingroup$
                        @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez I have mentioned that multiple reduction of rows results in two equal rows or a row of all zero's. In my example of the $ 3times 3$ matrix, if you subtract the first row from the second row you get a row of $3$ 's and if you subtract the first row from the third row you get a row of $6$'s, hence the linear dependence.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                        Jan 20 '18 at 5:12












                        $begingroup$
                        My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                        Jan 20 '18 at 5:54




                        $begingroup$
                        My point is, for every single matrix with zero determinant you can say that you get zero because "multiple reduction of does results in two equal rows or a row of all zeros" so that your answer would be immensely improved if you actually explained in it (and not in a comment) how exactly that happens for these specific matrices.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
                        Jan 20 '18 at 5:54












                        $begingroup$
                        @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                        Jan 20 '18 at 6:09




                        $begingroup$
                        @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Done! Thanks for your constructive comments.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
                        Jan 20 '18 at 6:09











                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Alternatively, using arithmetic mean, for $3times 3$ matrix determinant:
                        $$begin{vmatrix}
                        x+1 & x+2 & x+3 \
                        x+4 & x+5 & x+6 \
                        x+7 & x+8 & x+9 end{vmatrix}=0,$$

                        because: $C_1+C_3=2C_2$, which shows linear dependence of the column vectors.



                        For $4times 4$ matrix determinant:
                        $$begin{vmatrix}
                        x+1 & x+2 & x+3 & x+4 \
                        x+5 & x+6 & x+7 & x+8 \
                        x+9 & x+10 & x+11 & x+12 end{vmatrix}=0, text{because: }
                        C_1+C_4=C_2+C_3.$$



                        In geneal, for $(2n+1)times (2n+1), n>0,$ matrix determinant:
                        $$begin{vmatrix}
                        x+1&cdots &x+(n+1) &cdots &x+(2n+1)\
                        x+(2n+1)+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+2(2n+1)\
                        vdots&vdots&vdots &vdots&vdots\
                        x+2n(2n+1)+1&cdots &x+2n(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)^2
                        end{vmatrix}=0,\
                        text{because: } C_1+C_{2n+1}=C_{n+1}.$$

                        Can you write the generalization for $(2n)times (2n),n>0,$ matrix determinant?






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          Alternatively, using arithmetic mean, for $3times 3$ matrix determinant:
                          $$begin{vmatrix}
                          x+1 & x+2 & x+3 \
                          x+4 & x+5 & x+6 \
                          x+7 & x+8 & x+9 end{vmatrix}=0,$$

                          because: $C_1+C_3=2C_2$, which shows linear dependence of the column vectors.



                          For $4times 4$ matrix determinant:
                          $$begin{vmatrix}
                          x+1 & x+2 & x+3 & x+4 \
                          x+5 & x+6 & x+7 & x+8 \
                          x+9 & x+10 & x+11 & x+12 end{vmatrix}=0, text{because: }
                          C_1+C_4=C_2+C_3.$$



                          In geneal, for $(2n+1)times (2n+1), n>0,$ matrix determinant:
                          $$begin{vmatrix}
                          x+1&cdots &x+(n+1) &cdots &x+(2n+1)\
                          x+(2n+1)+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+2(2n+1)\
                          vdots&vdots&vdots &vdots&vdots\
                          x+2n(2n+1)+1&cdots &x+2n(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)^2
                          end{vmatrix}=0,\
                          text{because: } C_1+C_{2n+1}=C_{n+1}.$$

                          Can you write the generalization for $(2n)times (2n),n>0,$ matrix determinant?






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            Alternatively, using arithmetic mean, for $3times 3$ matrix determinant:
                            $$begin{vmatrix}
                            x+1 & x+2 & x+3 \
                            x+4 & x+5 & x+6 \
                            x+7 & x+8 & x+9 end{vmatrix}=0,$$

                            because: $C_1+C_3=2C_2$, which shows linear dependence of the column vectors.



                            For $4times 4$ matrix determinant:
                            $$begin{vmatrix}
                            x+1 & x+2 & x+3 & x+4 \
                            x+5 & x+6 & x+7 & x+8 \
                            x+9 & x+10 & x+11 & x+12 end{vmatrix}=0, text{because: }
                            C_1+C_4=C_2+C_3.$$



                            In geneal, for $(2n+1)times (2n+1), n>0,$ matrix determinant:
                            $$begin{vmatrix}
                            x+1&cdots &x+(n+1) &cdots &x+(2n+1)\
                            x+(2n+1)+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+2(2n+1)\
                            vdots&vdots&vdots &vdots&vdots\
                            x+2n(2n+1)+1&cdots &x+2n(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)^2
                            end{vmatrix}=0,\
                            text{because: } C_1+C_{2n+1}=C_{n+1}.$$

                            Can you write the generalization for $(2n)times (2n),n>0,$ matrix determinant?






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            Alternatively, using arithmetic mean, for $3times 3$ matrix determinant:
                            $$begin{vmatrix}
                            x+1 & x+2 & x+3 \
                            x+4 & x+5 & x+6 \
                            x+7 & x+8 & x+9 end{vmatrix}=0,$$

                            because: $C_1+C_3=2C_2$, which shows linear dependence of the column vectors.



                            For $4times 4$ matrix determinant:
                            $$begin{vmatrix}
                            x+1 & x+2 & x+3 & x+4 \
                            x+5 & x+6 & x+7 & x+8 \
                            x+9 & x+10 & x+11 & x+12 end{vmatrix}=0, text{because: }
                            C_1+C_4=C_2+C_3.$$



                            In geneal, for $(2n+1)times (2n+1), n>0,$ matrix determinant:
                            $$begin{vmatrix}
                            x+1&cdots &x+(n+1) &cdots &x+(2n+1)\
                            x+(2n+1)+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+2(2n+1)\
                            vdots&vdots&vdots &vdots&vdots\
                            x+2n(2n+1)+1&cdots &x+2n(2n+1)+n+1&cdots&x+(2n+1)^2
                            end{vmatrix}=0,\
                            text{because: } C_1+C_{2n+1}=C_{n+1}.$$

                            Can you write the generalization for $(2n)times (2n),n>0,$ matrix determinant?







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Jan 6 at 8:13









                            farruhotafarruhota

                            20.7k2740




                            20.7k2740






























                                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%2f2612982%2fwhy-does-the-determinant-always-equal-zero-for-a-square-matrix-of-consecutive-nu%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

                                Ellipse (mathématiques)

                                Quarter-circle Tiles

                                Mont Emei