1
$\begingroup$

Let $P_{ij}$ be variables, and let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ be the matrix defined by $$ A_{ij} = \begin{cases} -P_{ij} & i \neq j,\\ P_{i1} + P_{i2} + \dots + P_{in} & i=j. \end{cases} $$ For instance for $n=3$ $$ A = \begin{bmatrix} P_{1,1}+P_{1,2}+P_{1,3} & -P_{1,2} & -P_{1,3}\\ -P_{2,1} & P_{2,1}+P_{2,2}+P_{2,3} & -P_{2,3}\\ -P_{3,1} & -P_{3,2} & P_{3,1}+P_{3,2}+P_{3,3} \end{bmatrix}. $$ Then, computationally I observe that $\det(A)$ is the sum of $(n+1)^{n-1}$ distinct terms, each of which is the product of $n$ variables $P_{ij}$. For instance for $n=3$ we get the 16 terms \begin{align*} \det(A) &= P_{1,1}\,P_{2,1}\,P_{3,1}+P_{1,1}\,P_{2,1}\,P_{3,2}+P_{1,1}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,1}+P_{1,1}\,P_{2,1}\,P_{3,3} \\ &+ P_{1,1}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,2}+P_{1,1}\,P_{2,3}\,P_{3,1}+P_{1,2}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,1}+P_{1,1}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,3} \\ &+P_{1,2}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,2}+P_{1,1}\,P_{2,3}\,P_{3,3}+P_{1,2}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,3}+P_{1,3}\,P_{2,1}\,P_{3,3} \\& +P_{1,3}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,2}+P_{1,2}\,P_{2,3}\,P_{3,3}+P_{1,3}\,P_{2,2}\,P_{3,3}+P_{1,3}\,P_{2,3}\,P_{3,3}. \end{align*} Interestingly, there are no minus signs in the formula. Is this a known result? It looks like it might have a nice combinatorial interpretation, since the number of terms matches Cayley's formula for the number of trees on $n+1$ labeled nodes (https://oeis.org/A000272).

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't worked through the details, but I expect this would follow fairly immediately from the first (un-numbered) theorem on Page 379 of this paper: the sum described in that theorem also has $(n+1)^{n-1}$ terms, and there is a similar distinction between terms like $-P_{ij}$ and $P_{i1}+\cdots+P_{in}$ there. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 8, 2024 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ @NathanielJohnston Thanks, the suggestion was spot-on. I have filled in the blanks in a CW answer, but if you wish to write your own answer I will be happy to accept it. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2024 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ Nope, I’m happy to not work through the details myself. Glad it worked out! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2024 at 13:48

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Nathaniel Johnston's comment is correct; this is indeed a variant of the matrix tree theorem. To see this, one needs to rename the variable $P_{i,i}$ to $P_{i,0}$, for each $i$.

Then, $A$ becomes the matrix obtained by removing the $0$th row and column from the $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ matrix $$ L = \begin{bmatrix} * & -P_{0,1} & -P_{02} & -P_{0,3}\\ -P_{1,0} & * & -P_{1,2} & -P_{1,3}\\ -P_{2,0} & -P_{2,1} & * & -P_{2,3}\\ -P_{3,0} & -P_{3,1} & -P_{3,2} & * \end{bmatrix}, $$ where the diagonal entries denoted by $*$ are chosen so that each row sums to $0$. This matrix is the Laplacian of a weighted directed graph, and we can apply the generalized matrix tree theorem suggested in the comment (the first unnumbered theorem on page 379 of https://doi.org/10.1016/0097-3165(78)90067-5). This theorem states that $\det A$ is the sum of the weights of all arborescences (directed trees) rooted in the vertex $v_0$, each of which is a product of $n$ variables of the form $P_{ij}$.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.