Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: Dieudonné determinant

Bottom of Page

1 to 23 of 23

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2020

    a stub, in order to record references and satisfy links

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2020

    added pointer to this readable review:

    • Helmer Aslaksen, Quaternionic determinants, The Mathematical Intelligencer 18, 57–65 (1996) (doi:10.1007/BF03024312)

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2020

    added pointer to

    • Nir Cohen, Stefano De Leo, The quaternionic determinat, El. J. Lin. Alg. 7, 100-111 (2000) (arXiv:math-ph/9907015)

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    I added a bunch of information about the Dieudonné determinant and its partner, the Study determinant.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    Finished work on the Dieudonné determinant and Study determinant.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    Thanks. I have expanded the Idea-section a tad and touched formatting, hyperlinking, cross-linking, wording, and punctuation in sections 2 and 3.

    In particular, I gave the notation “detdet” a subscript: “det Dieudet_{Dieu}” (since it does not reduce to the usual detdet on complex matrices); and where it said “if two rows are exchanged” I inserted the word “consecutive”, since I guess this is needed here.

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    Now I have also touched section 4. In particular, the last “detdet” was meant to be an “sdetsdet”, I think, so I changed it.

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    (since it does not reduce to the usual detdet on complex matrices)

    How so? For C we have C^⨯/[C^⨯,C^⨯] = C^⨯, so the determinant does reduce to the usual determinant.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    True. But the quaternionic Dieudonné determinant does not reduce to the complex determinant along the inclusion of complex matrices into quaternionic matrices (but to the absolute value of the complex determinant).

    So I suppose the plain notation detdet is consistent in itself. But it should help to have the subscript around to avoid the evident pitfall. Best would be to add a paragraph on this point…

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021
    • (edited Feb 10th 2021)

    I see. The notation I would use would be det_C and det_H, in complete analogy to how we denote the base field for tensor products, etc.: ⊗_C, ⊗_H.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2021

    That sounds good to me. Let’s make it “det Kdet_K” in the entry.

    While we are at streamlining the notation, here are two more changes I would be inclined to make:

    • change “KK” to “𝕂\mathbb{K} (or to “kk”, but better “𝕂\mathbb{K}”)

    • change “sdetsdet” to something that looks less like the standard notation for super-determinants. If we do/did keep “det Dieudet_{Dieu}” then the evident choice here would be “det Studdet_{Stud}”, but if/since we don’t, this is not the evident choice. It’s still a possible choice, though.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021
    • (edited Feb 11th 2021)

    Draxl introduces a more primitive notion, Dieudonné predeterminant. Given a generic matrix TT over a skew-field one performs its Gauss decomposition in the form T=UDLT = U D L where UU is upper triangular unidiagonal, DD diagonal and LL lower triangular matrix, Dieudonné predeterminant δετ(T)\delta\epsilon\tau(T) is the product of the entries of the diagonal part DD upside down. If the matrix is not generic, question of rank surface out and the appropriate Bruhat decomposition should be chosen instead. Dieudonné determinant is the image of δετ(T)\delta\epsilon\tau(T) under the projection to the Abeliazation. It is well known that the Gauss decomposition of matrices over a noncommutative ring has an expression in terms of quasideterminants, as shown by Gelfand and Retakh in their foundational papers around 1990.

    I also added references to Draxl and a later paper of Gelfand at al. on quasi and other determinants for quaternions.

    For matrices over noncommutative rings, quasideterminants are much more fundamental notion than the Dieudonné determinant. Not only Berezinians, Dieudonné (pre)determinant, quantum determinants, inverse matrices and Gauss decomposition but also things like noncommutative analogues of Hankel determinants, noncommutative symmetric functions, quasisymmetric functions, continued fractions, and other important notions have their simplest expressions in terms of quasideterminants, sometimes even simpler than commutative analogues are expressed in terms of determinants (e.g Sylvester laws).

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021

    What is the tilde sign above the arrow in formula (1) in the entry Dieudonné determinant ? Is it an iso ?

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021
    • (edited Feb 11th 2021)

    Removed the ∼\sim from (1), since it used to be claimed as an isomorphism, but it turns out not to be so in the case K=𝔽 2K=\mathbb{F}_2.

    Also, Oscar Cunningham seems to have a convincing argument that this is the only counterexample among division rings (it comes down to needing some λ\lambda such that λ\lambda and 1−λ1-\lambda are units in a the division ring). In the case of 𝔽 2\mathbb{F}_2, the abelianisation is iso to ℤ/2\mathbb{Z}/2, but the target of the determinant on the invertible matrices is just {1}\{1\}.

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021

    Zoran,

    on your rev 12:

    I have looked up and tried to add pointer to where Draxl says these things in his book.

    Beyond that, I have touched the paragraph on the Draxl pre-determinant a little (here):

    Where you had “generic” I added “i.e.: invertible”.

    After the decomposition I added “This is called the strict Bruhat normal form” with pointer to Draxl’s definition.

    I am not sure what to make of your “upside down” in “the entries of the diagonal part DD upside down” (?)

    Similarly in the next line, I am not sure what to make of “surface out” in “If the matrix is not generic, question of rank surface out ” (?) Maybe you mean “the question arises”? But even then, isn’t non-full rank essentially the same a not being generic? Maybe you could clarify here.

    Then the last line of the paragraph – “It is well known that the Gauss decomposition of matrices over a noncommutative ring has an expression in terms of quasideterminants” – is lacking some logical tissue with the previous material. Maybe this sentence could continue with “…Draxl’s pre-determinant is such a quasi-determinant” (?).

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021

    If the matrix is not generic, question of rank surface out

    I took this to mean “If the matrix is not generic, questions of rank surface.”

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021

    By the way, while rev 10 kept mon Dieu, just changing it to D, I still think that Dmitri in #10 had the right idea:

    In the end, writing “det Ddet_D” throughout is as ambiguous as writing “detdet” throughout: both notations fail to make their dependence on the choice of KK explicit.

    And since the distinction between “det Ddet_D” and “det Sdet_S” is of interest only for the history of the subject, not for the mathematical content itself, I vote for writing, in our entry, “det Kdet_K” for the former and “det K 2det_K^2” for the latter.

    (Or rather, I really vote for writing det 𝕂det_{\mathbb{K}} for the former and det 𝕂 2det^2_{\mathbb{K}} for the latter…)

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2021

    Added proof that the Dieudonné determinant of every quaternionic unitary matrix is 1.

    diff, v15, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2021
    • (edited Feb 12th 2021)

    Sorry for a rather hasty and temporarily a bit misleading contribution.

    Draxl determinant is not a quasideterminant, but a signed product of nn quasideterminants (just like the determinant of a commutative matrix, quantum determinant and Berezinian are).

    Quasideterminants are noncommutative rational functions rather than polynomial and they appear more fundamental in this generality; when some sort of a polynomial determinant makes sense it is usually a simple expression (usually a product) of quasideterminants. For each entry of the matrix there is one quasideterminant, |A| ij|A|_{ij} (the ones in the same row or the same column are related by a ratio of lower size quasideterminants, this is called a homological relation). Now if you take a matrix and its lower right corner minor matrices of all sizes from one to 1 to n (these are sometimes called principal) and you take the quasideterminants with the left upper corner distinguished for each of them these are the principal quasiminors. So if you take a product of all nn principal quasiminors (no summation involved, just a simple product) you get the determinant in commutative case. Conversely, if you take the determinant of a matrix and divide by the determinant of its principal minor of size (n−1)×(n−1)(n-1)\times(n-1), then the ratio is the quasideterminant (in commutative case).

    Upside down, pardon my English, I meant in order from upper to lower.

    Maybe you mean “the question arises”

    Yes, but I was too vague here.

    As far as generic versus invertible/rank, Draxl assumes maximal row rank anyway, but I meant belonging to the big Bruhat cell, intuitively dense/generic (it is a specialization of a Cohn localization of a free algebra, which is in more specific sense dense in free algebra on n 2n^2 entries). Of course, the big Bruhat cell can be viewed beyond invertible matrices, but I think one should be a bit careful there. Now, other Bruhat cells have in commutative case certain codimension, so my allusion to rank was in this sense. Thus I said “questions of rank” as a type of reasoning. This was I see misleading. I am grading right now so I have no time to refresh my memory in sources (and my own research on related notions in Cohn localization and consequences of Gauss decomposition) before Sunday, but I should write this more clearly eventually.

    I also meant paranthetically that in some more general ring generalizations one can not describe in Draxl terms, but needs some machinery based on evaluation procedures of elements from the algebra of abstract noncommutative rational functions and certain combinatorial heights, genericity and other combinatorial questions in abstract algebra may be used. You see, abstract nc rational functions may or may not evaluate at specific elements of a specific ring; more importantly there is more than one expression for a rational function and one of the equivalent expressions works for some elements and another expression works for another elements. Generically you do not need to make a choice.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2021
    • (edited Feb 12th 2021)

    Erased (duplicate).

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2021

    This is probably more clear.

    Draxl 83 introduces a more primitive notion, the Dieudonné predeterminant:

    Given an invertible matrix TT over a skew-field (and in some other cases) there is a strict Bruhat normal form of TT (Draxl 83, Sec. 19, Thm. 1, Def. 1 (p. 128)) T=UDPLT = U D P L where

    • PP is a permutation matrix

    • UU is upper triangular unidiagonal,

    • DD diagonal

    • LL lower triangular unidiagonal matrix.

    The case when for PP the identity matrix can be taken may be viewed as generic as such matrices are dense in a number of meanings and contexts. This is the case of belonging to the big Bruhat cell or equivalently to the main Gauss cell, and the decomposition T=UDLT = U D L is the Gauss decomposition. Recall that other Bruhat cells are in commutative case of higher codimension, hence not dense, and similar statements can be made in a number of noncommutative contexts. Shifted Gauss cells, which correspond to a decomposition of matrices in the form PUDLP U D L for PP fixed are also dense in the same sense as they are simply the shifts (by multiplication by an invertible matrix PP) of the main cell.

    The Dieudonné predeterminant, introduced by Draxl, δετ(T)\delta\epsilon\tau(T) is the product of the entries of the diagonal part DD upside down (Draxl 83, Sec. 20, Def. 1 (p. 133)) if the matrix is invertible and zero otherwise.

    The Dieudonné determinant is then the image of δετ(T)\delta\epsilon\tau(T) under the projection to the abelianization (Draxl 83, Sec. 20, Cor. 1 (p. 135))

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2021

    This is probably more clear.

    Draxl 83 introduces a more primitive notion, the Dieudonné predeterminant:

    Given an invertible matrix TT over a skew-field (and in some other cases) there is a strict Bruhat normal form of TT (Draxl 83, Sec. 19, Thm. 1, Def. 1 (p. 128)) T=UDPLT = U D P L where

    • PP is a permutation matrix

    • UU is upper triangular unidiagonal,

    • DD diagonal

    • LL lower triangular unidiagonal matrix.

    The case when for PP the identity matrix can be taken may be viewed as generic as such matrices are dense in a number of meanings and contexts. This is the case of belonging to the big Bruhat cell or equivalently to the main Gauss cell, and the decomposition T=UDLT = U D L is the Gauss decomposition. Recall that other Bruhat cells are in commutative case of higher codimension, hence not dense, and similar statements can be made in a number of noncommutative contexts. Shifted Gauss cells, which correspond to a decomposition of matrices in the form PUDLP U D L for PP fixed are also dense in the same sense as they are simply the shifts (by multiplication by an invertible matrix PP) of the main cell.

    The Dieudonné predeterminant, introduced by Draxl, δετ(T)\delta\epsilon\tau(T) is the product of the entries of the diagonal part DD upside down (Draxl 83, Sec. 20, Def. 1 (p. 133)) if the matrix is invertible and zero otherwise.

    The Dieudonné determinant is then the image of δετ(T)\delta\epsilon\tau(T) under the projection to the abelianization (Draxl 83, Sec. 20, Cor. 1 (p. 135))

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2021

    Urs said

    Then the last line of the paragraph – “It is well known that the Gauss decomposition of matrices over a noncommutative ring has an expression in terms of quasideterminants” – is lacking some logical tissue with the previous material. Maybe this sentence could continue with “…Draxl’s pre-determinant is such a quasi-determinant” (?).

    Is the following better ?

    It is well known that the Gauss decomposition of matrices over a noncommutative ring has a simple expression in terms of quasideterminants, as shown by Gelfand-Retakh 02 (and in their earlier references, around 1990), from which it can be infered that the Dieudonné predeterminant can be generically presented as a signed product of quasideterminants.

1 to 23 of 23

  1.