1

Is there a publication containing this obvious fact: For any real T>0, any natural n, any complex c1,,cn, and any distinct complex z1,,zn such that n1cketzk=0 for all t[0,T), we have c1==cn=0?

Somehow, I cannot find such a publication.

Iosif Pinelis
  • 116,648
  • 5
    Vandermonde matrix is nonsingular? – Zach Teitler May 15 '20 at 22:20
  • 2
    Ycart, Bernard (2013), "A case of mathematical eponymy: the Vandermonde determinant", Revue d'Histoire des Mathématiques, 13, arXiv:1204.4716 – yarchik May 15 '20 at 22:20
  • You will probably find no 20 century publication, except an exercise is some Calculus or Linear algebra book. All these facts were really clarified in 18th century (perhaps by Wronski himself, or Vandermonde), but at that time they did not speak of "linear independence":-) – Alexandre Eremenko May 15 '20 at 22:42
  • @ZachTeitler : Thank you for your comment. However, I don't need a proof -- only a reference. – Iosif Pinelis May 15 '20 at 22:48
  • @yarchik : Thank you for your comment. However, I cannot find this fact in that paper by Ycart. – Iosif Pinelis May 15 '20 at 22:50
  • 1
    Publication includes textbooks by definition, so it should definitely appear in several of them... I searched Google books [linear independence exponentials] and immediately got this reference: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Y3YSCmWBVwoC&pg=PA618&dq=linear+independence+exponentials&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzo8bZ-rbpAhVID2MBHX_jAXEQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=linear%20independence%20exponentials&f=false – YCor May 15 '20 at 22:50
  • @AlexandreEremenko : Thank you for your comment. A reference to a textbook would be fine. – Iosif Pinelis May 15 '20 at 22:51
  • @YCor : Thank you for your comment. This may help. – Iosif Pinelis May 15 '20 at 23:01
  • 2
    I put this question on my final exam for linear algebra, and I got oodles of cool very different proofs. :-) – Pat Devlin May 16 '20 at 00:53
  • @Iosif Pinelis: You may combine probl. 2, and problem 60, of the second volume of Polya Szego, Problems and theorems of Analysis, part 7 "Determinants and Quadratic forms" (The first problem is Vandermonde det, the second is the criterion of linear independence). – Alexandre Eremenko May 16 '20 at 03:27
  • 2
    See Lemma 3.2 p. 92 in the book Differential Equations, Springer Verlag, 2016 by Viorel Barbu. The very elegant proof there is not the usual proof based on Wronskians. He proves a bit more, namely that the exponentials are linearly independent over the field of rational functions with complex coefficients. – Liviu Nicolaescu May 16 '20 at 09:16
  • @AlexandreEremenko : Thank you for your latter comment as well. Unfortunately, I don't have the Pólya--Szego book right now. Do they include the case of complex zk as well? – Iosif Pinelis May 17 '20 at 02:32
  • @LiviuNicolaescu : Thank you for your comment. This is exactly what I needed except that in Barbu's Lemma 3.2 the linear independence is for the exponential functions defined on R rather than on a finite nonzero-length interval. However, the proof (which seems the most natural to me and which I had foremost in mind) will of course work for the finite-interval case as well. Would you like to present your comment as a formal answer? – Iosif Pinelis May 17 '20 at 02:43
  • @Iosif Pinelis: It does not matter that zk are complex: computation of the Vandermonde determinant holds for any field. Frankly speaking I do not understand your difficulty. Polya Szego can be found on line. – Alexandre Eremenko May 17 '20 at 03:28
  • @IosifPinelis Glad it helps. I'll keep my answer as a comment. My contribution is minimal – Liviu Nicolaescu May 17 '20 at 08:31
  • @AlexandreEremenko : I have been unable to find the Pólya--Szego book online; could you please give a link to it? As for complex zk's and otherwise, my biggest concern is about how ready-to-use the published result is. As I said in the post and a comment, the desired result is obvious and the simplest and most natural proof (for me) is this: "divide by etzn, differentiate in t, and use induction on n. " -- without using Vandermonde determinants. – Iosif Pinelis May 17 '20 at 13:38
  • Previous comment continued: Yet another proof, of a stronger result -- with t in an n-set rather than in an interval but only for real zk's -- is given on p. 10 of "Tchebycheff systems: with applications in analysis and statistics" by Karlin and Studden. That proof uses Rolle's theorem and thus does not seem to work for complex zk's. – Iosif Pinelis May 17 '20 at 13:47
  • Apostol's Calculus book has a proof; I believe it is at the beginning of volume 2. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 17 '20 at 14:39
  • @AndrésE.Caicedo : Thank you for your comment. You are probably referring to Example 7 on page 10 of Section 1.7 of of the book at shorturl.at/cjwxZ . However, the proof there works only for for real zk's. – Iosif Pinelis May 17 '20 at 16:10
  • somewhat related https://mathoverflow.net/questions/277655/reference-for-exponential-vandermonde-determinant-identity – Abdelmalek Abdesselam May 17 '20 at 18:37
  • @AbdelmalekAbdesselam : Thank you for pointing out to this connection. – Iosif Pinelis May 18 '20 at 00:28

2 Answers2

6

I will recount the more general statement of linear independence of characters, given in Lang's Algebra book, and credited to Artin. Let G be a group, and K a field. Then distinct homomorphisms ϕ1,,ϕn:GK× are linearly independent.

Proof: Suppose not, and suppose we have a nontrivial linear relation

a1ϕ1++anϕn=0,(1)

where n is taken as small as possible. Clearly n>1 and ai0 for all i. Because the ϕi are distinct, we can find an element gG such that ϕ1(g)ϕ2(g). We have

a1ϕ1(gh)+a2ϕ2(gh)++anϕn(gh)=0

for all hG; by virtue of the ϕi being homomorphisms, this may be rewritten to say

a1ϕ1(g)ϕ1+a2ϕ2(g)ϕ2++anϕn(g)ϕn=0,(2)

Dividing (2) by ϕ1(g) and then subtracting (1) from the result, we arrive at a linear relation

(a2ϕ2(g)ϕ1(g)a2)ϕ2+=0

which has fewer than n summands and is nontrivial by choice of g, contradiction.

Todd Trimble
  • 52,336
1

Let yk(t)=etzk. Proving by contradiction, suppose that they are linearly dependent, that is nk=1ckyk0. Differentiating n1 times we obtain a homogeneous system of linear equations with respect to ck. To have a non-trivial solution, this system must have non-zero determinant. The determinant is: |y1y2yny1y2yny(n1)1y(n1)2y(n1)n|=A(t)|111z1z2znzn11zn12zn1n|, where A(t)=et(z1++zn)0. The determinant in the right hand side is easy to compute. Consider it as a polynomial with respect to, zn. It is evidently of degree n1 and has n1 roots at z1,,zn1. Therefore it is of the corm C(z1,,zn1)(znz1)(znzn1). Looking at the top degree term, we conclude that C is a similar polynomial. So by induction our determinant is i<k(zizk). this is never zero, since zk are distinct.

References. Polya Szego, Problems and theorems of analysis, vol II, Part 7, "Determinants and quadratic forms''. Computation of the Vandermonde determinant is problem 2. The Wronskian criterion of linear independence is problem 60.

Remark. Vandermondes's determinant is computed in ANY undergraduate textbook of linear algebra, as a first example of determinant. For example, I teach linear algebra with the textbook of Strang, and differential equations with the textbook of Boyce and di Prima. Both of them have Vandermonde determinant.

Remark 2. Undergraduate textbooks are rarely freely available online. If you insist on a free online reference, you may refer on the proof above.

  • 6
    In my experience, in 99% of the claimed applications of the Vandermonde determinant, one does not actually need the determinant, but only on the fact that the Vandermonde matrix is invertible, and this can be proved directly with a simpler argument: if a row vector is in the left kernel of this matrix, then its entries form the coefficients of a degree-(n1) polynomial with n distinct zeros. – Federico Poloni May 17 '20 at 14:39
  • 2
    @Federico Poloni: I agree with this remark. – Alexandre Eremenko May 17 '20 at 18:52