MathLabs
TheoremProved

Multiplicativity of the determinant

Statement

For any two n×nn\times n matrices A,BA,B, det⁡(AB)=det⁡(A)det⁡(B)\det(AB)=\det(A)\det(B).

Why is it true?

Since the determinant measures how much a linear map scales volume, applying map BB first and then map AA should scale volume by BB's factor and then by AA's factor, i.e. by the product of the two factors — multiplicativity is exactly the algebraic statement that composing linear maps composes their volume-scaling factors.

Proof sketch

First recall the effect of the three elementary row operations on the determinant (established directly from the Leibniz sum det⁡(A)=∑σ∈Snsgn⁡(σ)∏i=1nai,σ(i)\det(A)=\sum_{\sigma\in S_n}\operatorname{sgn}(\sigma)\prod_{i=1}^n a_{i,\sigma(i)}, since each term of that sum is linear in each row separately): swapping two rows multiplies det⁡\det by −1-1, scaling one row by kk multiplies det⁡\det by kk, and adding a multiple of one row to another leaves det⁡\det unchanged.

Each elementary row operation on AA is the same as left-multiplying AA by a corresponding elementary matrix EE (obtained by applying that same operation to the identity matrix II). Comparing with the previous paragraph, det⁡(E)\det(E) equals exactly the scaling factor of that operation (−1-1, kk, or 11 respectively), so for every elementary matrix EE, det⁡(EA)=det⁡(E)det⁡(A)\det(EA)=\det(E)\det(A).

Case AA invertible: Gaussian elimination reduces any invertible matrix to the identity using a finite sequence of elementary row operations, i.e. Em⋯E1A=IE_m\cdots E_1A=I for elementary matrices E1,…,EmE_1,\dots,E_m, so A=E1−1⋯Em−1A=E_1^{-1}\cdots E_m^{-1}, itself a product of elementary matrices (the inverse of an elementary matrix is again elementary, of the same type). Applying the previous paragraph's identity repeatedly, det⁡(A)=det⁡(E1−1)⋯det⁡(Em−1)\det(A)=\det(E_1^{-1})\cdots\det(E_m^{-1}), and applying it again to AB=E1−1⋯Em−1BAB=E_1^{-1}\cdots E_m^{-1}B gives det⁡(AB)=det⁡(E1−1)⋯det⁡(Em−1)det⁡(B)=det⁡(A)det⁡(B)\det(AB)=\det(E_1^{-1})\cdots\det(E_m^{-1})\det(B)=\det(A)\det(B).

Case AA singular: then det⁡(A)=0\det(A)=0 (a singular matrix cannot be reduced all the way to the identity, and the row-operation rules above show every reachable row-echelon form still has a zero row, forcing det⁡=0\det=0 by cofactor expansion along that row). Singularity also means rank⁡(A)<n\operatorname{rank}(A)<n, and since rank⁡(AB)≤rank⁡(A)<n\operatorname{rank}(AB)\leq\operatorname{rank}(A)<n for any BB, the product ABAB is singular too, so det⁡(AB)=0\det(AB)=0 as well. Hence det⁡(AB)=0=0⋅det⁡(B)=det⁡(A)det⁡(B)\det(AB)=0=0\cdot\det(B)=\det(A)\det(B), and the identity holds in this case too, completing the proof for every AA.

Topics that use this theorem

Step-by-step proofs

No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.

References

  1. Eric W. Weisstein (MathWorld) (2024). Determinant
  2. Gilbert Strang (2016). Introduction to Linear Algebra