Skip to content
The book

Determinants, trace, block matrices, rank inequalities

Why this is asked: Block formulas and the trace/determinant identities turn hard computations into one-liners. det(I + AB) = det(I + BA) is the single most useful trick here.

In one sentence

The determinant is multiplicative and violently non-additive, block structure is the fastest route through any large matrix, and the adjugate's rank takes only three values.

Why the exam asks it

Because these are the questions that can be made hard without being deep: a 4×44\times4 or 5×55\times5 matrix with structure, where the intended route takes ten seconds and brute force takes ten minutes. Recognising the structure is the skill being tested.

The idea

What the determinant does and does not respect

det⁡(AB)=det⁡Adet⁡B,det⁡(AT)=det⁡A,det⁡(cA)=cndet⁡A.\det(AB) = \det A \det B, \qquad \det(A^T) = \det A, \qquad \det(cA) = c^{n}\det A .

The third catches people constantly: scaling a matrix scales the determinant by cnc^n, not by cc, because every one of the nn rows is scaled.

det⁡(A+B)\det(A + B) has no formula. (1000)\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix} and (0001)\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix} are both singular and sum to II.

Also standard: det⁡(A−1)=1/det⁡A\det(A^{-1}) = 1/\det A, and det⁡\det of a triangular matrix is the product of the diagonal.

Block matrices

block triangular: always det [ A B ] [ 0 D ] = det A · det D A and D square. The B block is irrelevant, whatever it contains. general: only if C and D commute det [ A B ] [ C D ] = det(AD − BC)? False in general. Blocks are matrices, and matrices do not commute. The safe move is always to reduce to block triangular form first, then multiply.
Block triangular determinants always multiply. The general 2×2 block formula is not a theorem — the blocks are matrices, and matrices do not commute.
det⁡(AB0D)=det⁡A⋅det⁡D\det\begin{pmatrix}A & B\\ 0 & D\end{pmatrix} = \det A \cdot \det D

for square AA and DD, whatever BB is. Same for block lower triangular.

The general formula det⁡(ABCD)=det⁡(AD−BC)\det\begin{pmatrix}A&B\\C&D\end{pmatrix} = \det(AD - BC) is not a theorem. It holds when CC and DD commute, and fails otherwise, for the obvious reason that the "entries" here are matrices. When a question hands you a block matrix, the reliable move is to clear one block by row operations and reduce to triangular form.

Two identities worth carrying:

  • Sylvester: det⁡(Im+AB)=det⁡(In+BA)\det(I_m + AB) = \det(I_n + BA) for AA of size m×nm\times n and BB of n×mn \times m. It converts a large determinant into a small one, and is the intended route whenever ABAB is big and BABA is 1×11\times1.
  • Rank-one update: det⁡(I+uvT)=1+vTu\det(I + uv^{T}) = 1 + v^{T}u, which is Sylvester with n=1n = 1.

Trace

tr⁡(A+B)=tr⁡A+tr⁡B\operatorname{tr}(A + B) = \operatorname{tr}A + \operatorname{tr}B and tr⁡(AB)=tr⁡(BA)\operatorname{tr}(AB) = \operatorname{tr}(BA), always. Trace is additive; determinant is multiplicative; neither is both, and options swap them.

A consequence used often: AB−BA=IAB - BA = I is impossible over a field of characteristic 00, since the left side has trace 00 and the right has trace nn.

Rank inequalities

  • rank⁡(A+B)≤rank⁡A+rank⁡B\operatorname{rank}(A + B) \le \operatorname{rank}A + \operatorname{rank}B.
  • rank⁡(AB)≤min⁡(rank⁡A,rank⁡B)\operatorname{rank}(AB) \le \min(\operatorname{rank}A, \operatorname{rank}B).
  • Sylvester: rank⁡A+rank⁡B−n≤rank⁡(AB)\operatorname{rank}A + \operatorname{rank}B - n \le \operatorname{rank}(AB).
  • Frobenius: rank⁡(AB)+rank⁡(BC)≤rank⁡(B)+rank⁡(ABC)\operatorname{rank}(AB) + \operatorname{rank}(BC) \le \operatorname{rank}(B) + \operatorname{rank}(ABC).

Sylvester is the one that gets used: it is what proves AB=0AB = 0 forces rank⁡A+rank⁡B≤n\operatorname{rank}A + \operatorname{rank}B \le n.

The adjugate

adj⁡(A)\operatorname{adj}(A) has (i,j)(i,j) entry the (j,i)(j,i) cofactor, and

A⋅adj⁡(A)=adj⁡(A)⋅A=(det⁡A) I.A \cdot \operatorname{adj}(A) = \operatorname{adj}(A)\cdot A = (\det A)\,I .
rank A rank adj(A) why n n adj A = det(A)·A⁻¹, invertible n − 1 1 one cofactor survives ≤ n − 2 0 every (n−1)-minor vanishes There is no intermediate value. The rank of the adjugate is n, 1, or 0 and nothing else, which makes "rank adj(A) = 2" false for every A of any size — a free elimination.
The adjugate's rank takes only three values. Nothing lands in between, which turns many options into free eliminations.
rank⁡adj⁡(A)={nrank⁡A=n1rank⁡A=n−10rank⁡A≤n−2\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{adj}(A) = \begin{cases} n & \operatorname{rank}A = n\\ 1 & \operatorname{rank}A = n-1 \\ 0 & \operatorname{rank}A \le n-2\end{cases}

The middle case is the interesting one: if rank⁡A=n−1\operatorname{rank}A = n-1 then some (n−1)(n-1)-minor is nonzero so adj⁡A≠0\operatorname{adj}A \ne 0, while Aadj⁡A=0A\operatorname{adj}A = 0 forces every column of adj⁡A\operatorname{adj}A into the one-dimensional null space of AA. Also det⁡(adj⁡A)=(det⁡A)n−1\det(\operatorname{adj}A) = (\det A)^{n-1}.

Special determinants

  • Vandermonde: det⁡(xji−1)=∏i<j(xj−xi)\det(x_j^{i-1}) = \prod_{i<j}(x_j - x_i). Nonzero exactly when the nodes are distinct, which is why polynomial interpolation is uniquely solvable.
  • Skew-symmetric of odd order: determinant 00, since det⁡A=det⁡AT=det⁡(−A)=(−1)ndet⁡A\det A = \det A^T = \det(-A) = (-1)^n \det A.
  • Circulant: eigenvalues are ∑jcjωjk\sum_j c_j \omega^{jk} over the nn-th roots of unity.

Where intuition breaks

"det⁡(cA)=cdet⁡A\det(cA) = c\det A." It is cndet⁡Ac^n \det A. The most common arithmetic slip in the topic.

"det⁡(A+B)=det⁡A+det⁡B\det(A + B) = \det A + \det B." No formula exists. Two singular matrices can sum to the identity.

"det⁡(ABCD)=det⁡(AD−BC)\det\begin{pmatrix}A&B\\C&D\end{pmatrix} = \det(AD-BC)." Only when CC and DD commute. Tempting because it looks like the 2×22\times2 formula, and it is that formula with the wrong kind of entries.

"rank⁡(adj⁡A)=2\operatorname{rank}(\operatorname{adj}A) = 2." Impossible for any AA of any size — the rank is nn, 11 or 00. Options offering an intermediate value can be struck without computing anything.

"AB=0AB = 0, so A=0A = 0 or B=0B = 0." Matrices have zero divisors. What is true is rank⁡A+rank⁡B≤n\operatorname{rank}A + \operatorname{rank}B \le n, by Sylvester, and that is usually what the question wants.

"tr⁡(AB)=tr⁡Atr⁡B\operatorname{tr}(AB) = \operatorname{tr}A\operatorname{tr}B." Trace is additive, not multiplicative. Determinant is the multiplicative one.

"A skew-symmetric matrix has determinant zero." Only in odd order. In even order it is the square of the Pfaffian, and generally nonzero: (01−10)\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix} has determinant 11.

"det⁡A=0\det A = 0, so AA has a zero row or column." Singularity is a statement about dependence among rows, not about any row being zero.

The exam's angle

  1. Look for block structure before computing anything. A 4×44\times4 with a zero block is two 2×22\times2 determinants.
  2. Look for rank-one structure. det⁡(I+uvT)=1+vTu\det(I + uv^T) = 1 + v^Tu turns an n×nn\times n determinant into a dot product.
  3. Use trace to kill impossibilities. Anything of the form AB−BA=cIAB - BA = cI with c≠0c \ne 0 is impossible.
  4. For adjugate questions, get rank⁡A\operatorname{rank}A and read the table. No computation needed.
  5. Recognise Vandermonde on sight — rows or columns in geometric progression in the entries.

The night before

  • det⁡(AB)=det⁡Adet⁡B\det(AB) = \det A\det B; det⁡(cA)=cndet⁡A\det(cA) = c^n \det A; det⁡(A+B)\det(A+B) has no formula.
  • Block triangular: multiply the diagonal blocks. The general block formula needs CD=DCCD = DC.
  • Sylvester: det⁡(I+AB)=det⁡(I+BA)\det(I + AB) = \det(I + BA). Rank one: det⁡(I+uvT)=1+vTu\det(I + uv^T) = 1 + v^Tu.
  • tr⁡\operatorname{tr} additive and cyclic; det⁡\det multiplicative. AB−BA=IAB - BA = I is impossible.
  • rank⁡A+rank⁡B−n≤rank⁡(AB)≤min⁡\operatorname{rank}A + \operatorname{rank}B - n \le \operatorname{rank}(AB) \le \min.
  • Aadj⁡A=(det⁡A)IA\operatorname{adj}A = (\det A)I; rank⁡adj⁡A∈{n,1,0}\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{adj}A \in \{n, 1, 0\}; det⁡(adj⁡A)=(det⁡A)n−1\det(\operatorname{adj}A) = (\det A)^{n-1}.
  • Vandermonde =∏i<j(xj−xi)= \prod_{i<j}(x_j - x_i), nonzero iff nodes distinct.
  • Skew-symmetric: determinant 00 in odd order only.

See it move

Block matrices: which determinant formulas are actually trueinteractive

This visual is part of Trap Analysis

The triangular block rule, and the tempting formula that fails unless the blocks commute.

Unlock interactive visuals

Check yourself

Let A = J − I where J is the 5×5 all-ones matrix. Then det A equals

Take it further

Last revised . Found a mistake? Tell us — corrections are the fastest thing we act on.

Next: Cauchy–Riemann equations, harmonic functions

Create a free account to keep your place and have this feed your study plan.

ShareWhatsAppTelegram

Open this in the full syllabus view · Unit 1