A Determinant of Sums
Let be the matrix whose entry is . That is,
Compute .
Answer: A Determinant of Sums
Key Idea / Intuition
The matrix looks complicated, but a clever sequence of row operations strips it down to something triangular almost immediately. The key observation is: subtract each row from the one below it. Since adjacent rows of differ by at most one entry, this telescoping turns the dense matrix into a bidiagonal upper-triangular matrix, whose determinant reads off instantly from the diagonal.
Formal Proof / Solution
Step 1: Row reduction.
Perform the row operations for (in that order, working from the bottom up).
For the original matrix, row has entries:
After subtracting row from row , the new row (for ) has entries:
Now observe:
- If : , so the difference is .
- If : .
- If : and , so the difference is .
So the new row (for ) is:
Row is unchanged: .
Step 2: The resulting matrix.
After these row operations, the matrix becomes:
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\ \vdots & & & \ddots & & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ This is upper triangular with all diagonal entries equal to $1$. **Step 3: Read off the determinant.** Since row operations of the form $R_k \leftarrow R_k - R_{k-1}$ do not change the determinant, and the resulting matrix is upper triangular with all $1$s on the diagonal: $$\det(A) = 1.$$ **Sanity check for small $n$:** For $n = 2$: $$\det\begin{pmatrix}1 & 1 \\ 1 & 2\end{pmatrix} = 2 - 1 = 1. \checkmark$$ For $n = 3$: $$\det\begin{pmatrix}1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 2 & 2 \\ 1 & 2 & 3\end{pmatrix} = 1(6-4) - 1(3-2) + 1(2-2) = 2 - 1 + 0 = 1. \checkmark$$ **Conclusion:** $$\boxed{\det(A) = 1}$$ for all $n \geq 1$. **Bonus remark:** The matrix $A_{ij} = \min(i,j)$ is the covariance matrix of a standard Brownian motion $(B_1, B_2, \ldots, B_n)$ at integer times. The fact that its determinant is $1$ reflects a deep property of the increments: the Brownian increments $B_1, B_2 - B_1, \ldots, B_n - B_{n-1}$ are i.i.d. $N(0,1)$, so the transformation from $(B_k)$ to its increments is volume-preserving — exactly what determinant $1$ says!Source: putnam/2014s.pdf — related technique; classical problem (also attributed to Benoit Cloitre, OEIS A010790)