how does addition of identity matrix to a square matrix changes determinant?
Suppose there is $n times n$ matrix $A$. If we form matrix $B = A+I$ where $I$ is $n times n$ identity matrix, how does $|B|$ - determinant of $B$ - change compared to $|A|$? And what about the case where $B = A - I$?
linear-algebra matrices determinant
add a comment |
Suppose there is $n times n$ matrix $A$. If we form matrix $B = A+I$ where $I$ is $n times n$ identity matrix, how does $|B|$ - determinant of $B$ - change compared to $|A|$? And what about the case where $B = A - I$?
linear-algebra matrices determinant
add a comment |
Suppose there is $n times n$ matrix $A$. If we form matrix $B = A+I$ where $I$ is $n times n$ identity matrix, how does $|B|$ - determinant of $B$ - change compared to $|A|$? And what about the case where $B = A - I$?
linear-algebra matrices determinant
Suppose there is $n times n$ matrix $A$. If we form matrix $B = A+I$ where $I$ is $n times n$ identity matrix, how does $|B|$ - determinant of $B$ - change compared to $|A|$? And what about the case where $B = A - I$?
linear-algebra matrices determinant
linear-algebra matrices determinant
edited Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
darij grinberg
10.4k33062
10.4k33062
asked Dec 12 '12 at 9:08
DDRDDR
3112
3112
add a comment |
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
In case you are interested, there is a result which expresses $det(A+B)$ in terms of $det(A)$ and $det (B)$, it is given by following $$det (A+B)=det(A)+det(B)+sum_{i=1}^{n-1}Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$$
Where $Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$ is defined as a sum of the combination
of determinants, in which the $i$ rows of $A$ are substituted
by the corresponding rows of $B$. You can find the proof in this IEEE article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=262036&userType=inst
1
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
add a comment |
There is no simple answer. $P(lambda) = det(A-lambda I)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $A$. This is a polynomial of degree $n$: the coefficient of $lambda^n$ is $(-1)^n$ and the coefficient of $lambda^0$ is $det(A)$. The coefficients of other powers of $lambda$ are various functions of the entries of $A$. $det(A+I)$ and $det(A-I)$ are $P(-1)$ and $P(1)$; that's about all there is to say about them.
add a comment |
As others already have pointed out, there is no simple relation. Here is one answer more for the intuition.
Consider the (restricting) codition, that $A_{n times n}$ is diagonalizable, then $$det(A) = lambda_0 cdot lambda_1 cdot lambda_2 cdot cdots lambda _{n-1} $$
Now consider you add the identity matrix. The determinant changes to
$$det(B) = (lambda_0+1) cdot (lambda_1+1) cdot (lambda_2+1) cdot cdots (lambda _{n-1} +1)$$
I think it is obvious how irregular the result depends on the given eigenvalues of A. If some $lambda_k=0$ then $det(A)=0$ but that zero-factor changes to $(lambda_k+1)$ and det(B) need not be zero. Other way round - if some factor $lambda_k=-1$ then the addition by I makes that factor $lambda_k+1=0$ and the determinant $det(B)$ becomes zero. If some $0 gt lambda_k gt -1$ then the determinant may change its sign...
So there is no hope to make one single statement about the behave of B related to A - except that where @pritam linked to, or except you would accept a statement like $$det(A)=e_n(Lambda_n) to det(B)= sum_{j=0}^n e_j(Lambda) $$ where $ Lambda = {lambda_k}_{k=0..n-1} $ and $e_k(Lambda)$ denotes k'th elementary symmetric polynomial over $Lambda$... (And this is only for diagonalizable matrices)
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
add a comment |
The characteristic polynomial $P_A(lambda)$ of a matrix $A$ is defined as
$$
P_A(lambda)=det(A-Ilambda)
$$
Therefore, $det(A)=P_A(0)$, while $det(A+I)=P_A(-1)$ and $det(A-I)=P_A(1)$.
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
add a comment |
For I and A $Ntimes N$ matrices we have:
$$det(I-A)=1-sum_{j}^{N}A_{jj}+sum_{ngeq 2}^{N}(-1)^{n}sum_{1leq j_{1}<...<j_{n}leq N}det((A_{j_{a},j_{b}})^{n}).$$
add a comment |
I would like to contribute the following special case which I encountered when I was looking for an answer and stumbled upon this thread.
If A=uv^intercal
, then det(I+A) = 1+u^Tv
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f256969%2fhow-does-addition-of-identity-matrix-to-a-square-matrix-changes-determinant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In case you are interested, there is a result which expresses $det(A+B)$ in terms of $det(A)$ and $det (B)$, it is given by following $$det (A+B)=det(A)+det(B)+sum_{i=1}^{n-1}Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$$
Where $Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$ is defined as a sum of the combination
of determinants, in which the $i$ rows of $A$ are substituted
by the corresponding rows of $B$. You can find the proof in this IEEE article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=262036&userType=inst
1
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
add a comment |
In case you are interested, there is a result which expresses $det(A+B)$ in terms of $det(A)$ and $det (B)$, it is given by following $$det (A+B)=det(A)+det(B)+sum_{i=1}^{n-1}Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$$
Where $Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$ is defined as a sum of the combination
of determinants, in which the $i$ rows of $A$ are substituted
by the corresponding rows of $B$. You can find the proof in this IEEE article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=262036&userType=inst
1
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
add a comment |
In case you are interested, there is a result which expresses $det(A+B)$ in terms of $det(A)$ and $det (B)$, it is given by following $$det (A+B)=det(A)+det(B)+sum_{i=1}^{n-1}Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$$
Where $Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$ is defined as a sum of the combination
of determinants, in which the $i$ rows of $A$ are substituted
by the corresponding rows of $B$. You can find the proof in this IEEE article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=262036&userType=inst
In case you are interested, there is a result which expresses $det(A+B)$ in terms of $det(A)$ and $det (B)$, it is given by following $$det (A+B)=det(A)+det(B)+sum_{i=1}^{n-1}Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$$
Where $Gamma_n^idet(A/B^i)$ is defined as a sum of the combination
of determinants, in which the $i$ rows of $A$ are substituted
by the corresponding rows of $B$. You can find the proof in this IEEE article: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=262036&userType=inst
edited Dec 12 '12 at 11:11
answered Dec 12 '12 at 9:26
pritampritam
8,0671441
8,0671441
1
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
add a comment |
1
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
1
1
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
Note: This formula is just a consequence of applying the multilinearity of the determinant once to each row (consecutively, so you end up with a sum of $2^n $ addends).
– darij grinberg
Mar 12 '18 at 8:20
add a comment |
There is no simple answer. $P(lambda) = det(A-lambda I)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $A$. This is a polynomial of degree $n$: the coefficient of $lambda^n$ is $(-1)^n$ and the coefficient of $lambda^0$ is $det(A)$. The coefficients of other powers of $lambda$ are various functions of the entries of $A$. $det(A+I)$ and $det(A-I)$ are $P(-1)$ and $P(1)$; that's about all there is to say about them.
add a comment |
There is no simple answer. $P(lambda) = det(A-lambda I)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $A$. This is a polynomial of degree $n$: the coefficient of $lambda^n$ is $(-1)^n$ and the coefficient of $lambda^0$ is $det(A)$. The coefficients of other powers of $lambda$ are various functions of the entries of $A$. $det(A+I)$ and $det(A-I)$ are $P(-1)$ and $P(1)$; that's about all there is to say about them.
add a comment |
There is no simple answer. $P(lambda) = det(A-lambda I)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $A$. This is a polynomial of degree $n$: the coefficient of $lambda^n$ is $(-1)^n$ and the coefficient of $lambda^0$ is $det(A)$. The coefficients of other powers of $lambda$ are various functions of the entries of $A$. $det(A+I)$ and $det(A-I)$ are $P(-1)$ and $P(1)$; that's about all there is to say about them.
There is no simple answer. $P(lambda) = det(A-lambda I)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $A$. This is a polynomial of degree $n$: the coefficient of $lambda^n$ is $(-1)^n$ and the coefficient of $lambda^0$ is $det(A)$. The coefficients of other powers of $lambda$ are various functions of the entries of $A$. $det(A+I)$ and $det(A-I)$ are $P(-1)$ and $P(1)$; that's about all there is to say about them.
answered Dec 12 '12 at 9:14
Robert IsraelRobert Israel
319k23208458
319k23208458
add a comment |
add a comment |
As others already have pointed out, there is no simple relation. Here is one answer more for the intuition.
Consider the (restricting) codition, that $A_{n times n}$ is diagonalizable, then $$det(A) = lambda_0 cdot lambda_1 cdot lambda_2 cdot cdots lambda _{n-1} $$
Now consider you add the identity matrix. The determinant changes to
$$det(B) = (lambda_0+1) cdot (lambda_1+1) cdot (lambda_2+1) cdot cdots (lambda _{n-1} +1)$$
I think it is obvious how irregular the result depends on the given eigenvalues of A. If some $lambda_k=0$ then $det(A)=0$ but that zero-factor changes to $(lambda_k+1)$ and det(B) need not be zero. Other way round - if some factor $lambda_k=-1$ then the addition by I makes that factor $lambda_k+1=0$ and the determinant $det(B)$ becomes zero. If some $0 gt lambda_k gt -1$ then the determinant may change its sign...
So there is no hope to make one single statement about the behave of B related to A - except that where @pritam linked to, or except you would accept a statement like $$det(A)=e_n(Lambda_n) to det(B)= sum_{j=0}^n e_j(Lambda) $$ where $ Lambda = {lambda_k}_{k=0..n-1} $ and $e_k(Lambda)$ denotes k'th elementary symmetric polynomial over $Lambda$... (And this is only for diagonalizable matrices)
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
add a comment |
As others already have pointed out, there is no simple relation. Here is one answer more for the intuition.
Consider the (restricting) codition, that $A_{n times n}$ is diagonalizable, then $$det(A) = lambda_0 cdot lambda_1 cdot lambda_2 cdot cdots lambda _{n-1} $$
Now consider you add the identity matrix. The determinant changes to
$$det(B) = (lambda_0+1) cdot (lambda_1+1) cdot (lambda_2+1) cdot cdots (lambda _{n-1} +1)$$
I think it is obvious how irregular the result depends on the given eigenvalues of A. If some $lambda_k=0$ then $det(A)=0$ but that zero-factor changes to $(lambda_k+1)$ and det(B) need not be zero. Other way round - if some factor $lambda_k=-1$ then the addition by I makes that factor $lambda_k+1=0$ and the determinant $det(B)$ becomes zero. If some $0 gt lambda_k gt -1$ then the determinant may change its sign...
So there is no hope to make one single statement about the behave of B related to A - except that where @pritam linked to, or except you would accept a statement like $$det(A)=e_n(Lambda_n) to det(B)= sum_{j=0}^n e_j(Lambda) $$ where $ Lambda = {lambda_k}_{k=0..n-1} $ and $e_k(Lambda)$ denotes k'th elementary symmetric polynomial over $Lambda$... (And this is only for diagonalizable matrices)
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
add a comment |
As others already have pointed out, there is no simple relation. Here is one answer more for the intuition.
Consider the (restricting) codition, that $A_{n times n}$ is diagonalizable, then $$det(A) = lambda_0 cdot lambda_1 cdot lambda_2 cdot cdots lambda _{n-1} $$
Now consider you add the identity matrix. The determinant changes to
$$det(B) = (lambda_0+1) cdot (lambda_1+1) cdot (lambda_2+1) cdot cdots (lambda _{n-1} +1)$$
I think it is obvious how irregular the result depends on the given eigenvalues of A. If some $lambda_k=0$ then $det(A)=0$ but that zero-factor changes to $(lambda_k+1)$ and det(B) need not be zero. Other way round - if some factor $lambda_k=-1$ then the addition by I makes that factor $lambda_k+1=0$ and the determinant $det(B)$ becomes zero. If some $0 gt lambda_k gt -1$ then the determinant may change its sign...
So there is no hope to make one single statement about the behave of B related to A - except that where @pritam linked to, or except you would accept a statement like $$det(A)=e_n(Lambda_n) to det(B)= sum_{j=0}^n e_j(Lambda) $$ where $ Lambda = {lambda_k}_{k=0..n-1} $ and $e_k(Lambda)$ denotes k'th elementary symmetric polynomial over $Lambda$... (And this is only for diagonalizable matrices)
As others already have pointed out, there is no simple relation. Here is one answer more for the intuition.
Consider the (restricting) codition, that $A_{n times n}$ is diagonalizable, then $$det(A) = lambda_0 cdot lambda_1 cdot lambda_2 cdot cdots lambda _{n-1} $$
Now consider you add the identity matrix. The determinant changes to
$$det(B) = (lambda_0+1) cdot (lambda_1+1) cdot (lambda_2+1) cdot cdots (lambda _{n-1} +1)$$
I think it is obvious how irregular the result depends on the given eigenvalues of A. If some $lambda_k=0$ then $det(A)=0$ but that zero-factor changes to $(lambda_k+1)$ and det(B) need not be zero. Other way round - if some factor $lambda_k=-1$ then the addition by I makes that factor $lambda_k+1=0$ and the determinant $det(B)$ becomes zero. If some $0 gt lambda_k gt -1$ then the determinant may change its sign...
So there is no hope to make one single statement about the behave of B related to A - except that where @pritam linked to, or except you would accept a statement like $$det(A)=e_n(Lambda_n) to det(B)= sum_{j=0}^n e_j(Lambda) $$ where $ Lambda = {lambda_k}_{k=0..n-1} $ and $e_k(Lambda)$ denotes k'th elementary symmetric polynomial over $Lambda$... (And this is only for diagonalizable matrices)
edited Dec 12 '12 at 12:46
answered Dec 12 '12 at 12:31
Gottfried HelmsGottfried Helms
23.2k24398
23.2k24398
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
add a comment |
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
You don't need diagonalizable in your arguments. You can always work with the Jordan form, or with the Schur decomposition, and reason exactly like you did.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 12 '12 at 13:07
add a comment |
The characteristic polynomial $P_A(lambda)$ of a matrix $A$ is defined as
$$
P_A(lambda)=det(A-Ilambda)
$$
Therefore, $det(A)=P_A(0)$, while $det(A+I)=P_A(-1)$ and $det(A-I)=P_A(1)$.
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
add a comment |
The characteristic polynomial $P_A(lambda)$ of a matrix $A$ is defined as
$$
P_A(lambda)=det(A-Ilambda)
$$
Therefore, $det(A)=P_A(0)$, while $det(A+I)=P_A(-1)$ and $det(A-I)=P_A(1)$.
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
add a comment |
The characteristic polynomial $P_A(lambda)$ of a matrix $A$ is defined as
$$
P_A(lambda)=det(A-Ilambda)
$$
Therefore, $det(A)=P_A(0)$, while $det(A+I)=P_A(-1)$ and $det(A-I)=P_A(1)$.
The characteristic polynomial $P_A(lambda)$ of a matrix $A$ is defined as
$$
P_A(lambda)=det(A-Ilambda)
$$
Therefore, $det(A)=P_A(0)$, while $det(A+I)=P_A(-1)$ and $det(A-I)=P_A(1)$.
answered Dec 12 '12 at 9:15
robjohn♦robjohn
265k27303626
265k27303626
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
add a comment |
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
Merry Christmas.
– user1551
Dec 12 '12 at 9:43
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
@user1551: and Happy New Year!
– robjohn♦
Dec 12 '12 at 10:02
add a comment |
For I and A $Ntimes N$ matrices we have:
$$det(I-A)=1-sum_{j}^{N}A_{jj}+sum_{ngeq 2}^{N}(-1)^{n}sum_{1leq j_{1}<...<j_{n}leq N}det((A_{j_{a},j_{b}})^{n}).$$
add a comment |
For I and A $Ntimes N$ matrices we have:
$$det(I-A)=1-sum_{j}^{N}A_{jj}+sum_{ngeq 2}^{N}(-1)^{n}sum_{1leq j_{1}<...<j_{n}leq N}det((A_{j_{a},j_{b}})^{n}).$$
add a comment |
For I and A $Ntimes N$ matrices we have:
$$det(I-A)=1-sum_{j}^{N}A_{jj}+sum_{ngeq 2}^{N}(-1)^{n}sum_{1leq j_{1}<...<j_{n}leq N}det((A_{j_{a},j_{b}})^{n}).$$
For I and A $Ntimes N$ matrices we have:
$$det(I-A)=1-sum_{j}^{N}A_{jj}+sum_{ngeq 2}^{N}(-1)^{n}sum_{1leq j_{1}<...<j_{n}leq N}det((A_{j_{a},j_{b}})^{n}).$$
answered Mar 12 '18 at 0:47
Thomas KojarThomas Kojar
1155
1155
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would like to contribute the following special case which I encountered when I was looking for an answer and stumbled upon this thread.
If A=uv^intercal
, then det(I+A) = 1+u^Tv
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
add a comment |
I would like to contribute the following special case which I encountered when I was looking for an answer and stumbled upon this thread.
If A=uv^intercal
, then det(I+A) = 1+u^Tv
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
add a comment |
I would like to contribute the following special case which I encountered when I was looking for an answer and stumbled upon this thread.
If A=uv^intercal
, then det(I+A) = 1+u^Tv
I would like to contribute the following special case which I encountered when I was looking for an answer and stumbled upon this thread.
If A=uv^intercal
, then det(I+A) = 1+u^Tv
answered Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
mexmexmexmex
1236
1236
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
add a comment |
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
P.S Someone please help with formatting this to correct transposes. Didn't manage.
– mexmex
Dec 4 '18 at 9:54
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f256969%2fhow-does-addition-of-identity-matrix-to-a-square-matrix-changes-determinant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown