A pattern in determinants of Fibonacci numbers?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2












Let $F_n$ denote the $n$th Fibonacci number, adopting the convention $F_1=1$, $F_2=1$ and so on. Consider the $ntimes n$ matrix defined by



$$mathbf M_n:=beginbmatrixF_1&F_2&dots&F_n\F_n+1&F_n+2&dots&F_2n\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\F_n^2-n+1&F_n^2-n+2&dots&F_n^2endbmatrix.$$



I have the following conjecture:




Conjecture. For all integers $ngeq3$, $detmathbf M_n=0$.




I have used some Python code to test this conjecture for $n$ up to $9$, but I cannot go further. Note that $detmathbf M_1=detmathbf M_2=1$. Due to the elementary nature of this problem I have to assume that it has been discussed before, perhaps even on this site. But I couldn't find any reference on it, by Googling or searching here. Can someone shed light onto whether the conjecture is true, and a proof of it if so?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 1




    Fun question. Next time I teach matrix theory I might use this as an extra credit problem on a homework set involving determinants. As you know now, the solution isn't hard, but it would take a pretty clever student to spot it on their own. Thanks.
    – John Coleman
    Dec 3 at 12:19






  • 1




    Problem A3 from the 2009 Putnam competition has a very similar statement and a very similar solution, only replacing $F_k$ by $cos k$ (in radians).
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 3 at 15:46














up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2












Let $F_n$ denote the $n$th Fibonacci number, adopting the convention $F_1=1$, $F_2=1$ and so on. Consider the $ntimes n$ matrix defined by



$$mathbf M_n:=beginbmatrixF_1&F_2&dots&F_n\F_n+1&F_n+2&dots&F_2n\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\F_n^2-n+1&F_n^2-n+2&dots&F_n^2endbmatrix.$$



I have the following conjecture:




Conjecture. For all integers $ngeq3$, $detmathbf M_n=0$.




I have used some Python code to test this conjecture for $n$ up to $9$, but I cannot go further. Note that $detmathbf M_1=detmathbf M_2=1$. Due to the elementary nature of this problem I have to assume that it has been discussed before, perhaps even on this site. But I couldn't find any reference on it, by Googling or searching here. Can someone shed light onto whether the conjecture is true, and a proof of it if so?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 1




    Fun question. Next time I teach matrix theory I might use this as an extra credit problem on a homework set involving determinants. As you know now, the solution isn't hard, but it would take a pretty clever student to spot it on their own. Thanks.
    – John Coleman
    Dec 3 at 12:19






  • 1




    Problem A3 from the 2009 Putnam competition has a very similar statement and a very similar solution, only replacing $F_k$ by $cos k$ (in radians).
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 3 at 15:46












up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2






2





Let $F_n$ denote the $n$th Fibonacci number, adopting the convention $F_1=1$, $F_2=1$ and so on. Consider the $ntimes n$ matrix defined by



$$mathbf M_n:=beginbmatrixF_1&F_2&dots&F_n\F_n+1&F_n+2&dots&F_2n\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\F_n^2-n+1&F_n^2-n+2&dots&F_n^2endbmatrix.$$



I have the following conjecture:




Conjecture. For all integers $ngeq3$, $detmathbf M_n=0$.




I have used some Python code to test this conjecture for $n$ up to $9$, but I cannot go further. Note that $detmathbf M_1=detmathbf M_2=1$. Due to the elementary nature of this problem I have to assume that it has been discussed before, perhaps even on this site. But I couldn't find any reference on it, by Googling or searching here. Can someone shed light onto whether the conjecture is true, and a proof of it if so?










share|cite|improve this question















Let $F_n$ denote the $n$th Fibonacci number, adopting the convention $F_1=1$, $F_2=1$ and so on. Consider the $ntimes n$ matrix defined by



$$mathbf M_n:=beginbmatrixF_1&F_2&dots&F_n\F_n+1&F_n+2&dots&F_2n\vdots&vdots&ddots&vdots\F_n^2-n+1&F_n^2-n+2&dots&F_n^2endbmatrix.$$



I have the following conjecture:




Conjecture. For all integers $ngeq3$, $detmathbf M_n=0$.




I have used some Python code to test this conjecture for $n$ up to $9$, but I cannot go further. Note that $detmathbf M_1=detmathbf M_2=1$. Due to the elementary nature of this problem I have to assume that it has been discussed before, perhaps even on this site. But I couldn't find any reference on it, by Googling or searching here. Can someone shed light onto whether the conjecture is true, and a proof of it if so?







linear-algebra determinant fibonacci-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 3 at 9:02









Martin Sleziak

44.5k7115269




44.5k7115269










asked Dec 3 at 1:55









YiFan

2,0741419




2,0741419







  • 1




    Fun question. Next time I teach matrix theory I might use this as an extra credit problem on a homework set involving determinants. As you know now, the solution isn't hard, but it would take a pretty clever student to spot it on their own. Thanks.
    – John Coleman
    Dec 3 at 12:19






  • 1




    Problem A3 from the 2009 Putnam competition has a very similar statement and a very similar solution, only replacing $F_k$ by $cos k$ (in radians).
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 3 at 15:46












  • 1




    Fun question. Next time I teach matrix theory I might use this as an extra credit problem on a homework set involving determinants. As you know now, the solution isn't hard, but it would take a pretty clever student to spot it on their own. Thanks.
    – John Coleman
    Dec 3 at 12:19






  • 1




    Problem A3 from the 2009 Putnam competition has a very similar statement and a very similar solution, only replacing $F_k$ by $cos k$ (in radians).
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 3 at 15:46







1




1




Fun question. Next time I teach matrix theory I might use this as an extra credit problem on a homework set involving determinants. As you know now, the solution isn't hard, but it would take a pretty clever student to spot it on their own. Thanks.
– John Coleman
Dec 3 at 12:19




Fun question. Next time I teach matrix theory I might use this as an extra credit problem on a homework set involving determinants. As you know now, the solution isn't hard, but it would take a pretty clever student to spot it on their own. Thanks.
– John Coleman
Dec 3 at 12:19




1




1




Problem A3 from the 2009 Putnam competition has a very similar statement and a very similar solution, only replacing $F_k$ by $cos k$ (in radians).
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 3 at 15:46




Problem A3 from the 2009 Putnam competition has a very similar statement and a very similar solution, only replacing $F_k$ by $cos k$ (in radians).
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 3 at 15:46










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
23
down vote



accepted










Here's a hint: what's the relationship between $F_k+1+F_k+2$ and $F_k+3$? What does that say about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns of this matrix?






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    6
    down vote













    The resolution is remarkably simple (many thanks to obscurans' answer for the hint!) By the definition of the Fibonacci numbers, $F_k+F_k+1=F_k+2$ for all $k$. If $ngeq3$ then these numbers are going to be in the first three columns of every row. Hence the first three rows are linearly dependent, so the determinant is $0$. It follows from this that any such sequence following a linear recurrence (of the form $F_n=aF_n-1+bF_n-2$, $a,b$ are constant), with possibly different starting terms, also satisfies the stated conjecture. In fact, this shows that all such matrices have rank $2$, with the only two linearly independent columns being the first two. If the linear recurrence is of higher order, say $m$, then the determinant is $0$ when $n>m$, and the rank of the matrix will be $m$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 2




      One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
      – obscurans
      Dec 3 at 2:11











    • @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
      – Spitemaster
      Dec 3 at 15:31










    • There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
      – obscurans
      Dec 4 at 2:52










    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023500%2fa-pattern-in-determinants-of-fibonacci-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    23
    down vote



    accepted










    Here's a hint: what's the relationship between $F_k+1+F_k+2$ and $F_k+3$? What does that say about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns of this matrix?






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      23
      down vote



      accepted










      Here's a hint: what's the relationship between $F_k+1+F_k+2$ and $F_k+3$? What does that say about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns of this matrix?






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        23
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        23
        down vote



        accepted






        Here's a hint: what's the relationship between $F_k+1+F_k+2$ and $F_k+3$? What does that say about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns of this matrix?






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Here's a hint: what's the relationship between $F_k+1+F_k+2$ and $F_k+3$? What does that say about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns of this matrix?







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 3 at 1:58









        obscurans

        60519




        60519




















            up vote
            6
            down vote













            The resolution is remarkably simple (many thanks to obscurans' answer for the hint!) By the definition of the Fibonacci numbers, $F_k+F_k+1=F_k+2$ for all $k$. If $ngeq3$ then these numbers are going to be in the first three columns of every row. Hence the first three rows are linearly dependent, so the determinant is $0$. It follows from this that any such sequence following a linear recurrence (of the form $F_n=aF_n-1+bF_n-2$, $a,b$ are constant), with possibly different starting terms, also satisfies the stated conjecture. In fact, this shows that all such matrices have rank $2$, with the only two linearly independent columns being the first two. If the linear recurrence is of higher order, say $m$, then the determinant is $0$ when $n>m$, and the rank of the matrix will be $m$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 2




              One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
              – obscurans
              Dec 3 at 2:11











            • @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
              – Spitemaster
              Dec 3 at 15:31










            • There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
              – obscurans
              Dec 4 at 2:52














            up vote
            6
            down vote













            The resolution is remarkably simple (many thanks to obscurans' answer for the hint!) By the definition of the Fibonacci numbers, $F_k+F_k+1=F_k+2$ for all $k$. If $ngeq3$ then these numbers are going to be in the first three columns of every row. Hence the first three rows are linearly dependent, so the determinant is $0$. It follows from this that any such sequence following a linear recurrence (of the form $F_n=aF_n-1+bF_n-2$, $a,b$ are constant), with possibly different starting terms, also satisfies the stated conjecture. In fact, this shows that all such matrices have rank $2$, with the only two linearly independent columns being the first two. If the linear recurrence is of higher order, say $m$, then the determinant is $0$ when $n>m$, and the rank of the matrix will be $m$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 2




              One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
              – obscurans
              Dec 3 at 2:11











            • @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
              – Spitemaster
              Dec 3 at 15:31










            • There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
              – obscurans
              Dec 4 at 2:52












            up vote
            6
            down vote










            up vote
            6
            down vote









            The resolution is remarkably simple (many thanks to obscurans' answer for the hint!) By the definition of the Fibonacci numbers, $F_k+F_k+1=F_k+2$ for all $k$. If $ngeq3$ then these numbers are going to be in the first three columns of every row. Hence the first three rows are linearly dependent, so the determinant is $0$. It follows from this that any such sequence following a linear recurrence (of the form $F_n=aF_n-1+bF_n-2$, $a,b$ are constant), with possibly different starting terms, also satisfies the stated conjecture. In fact, this shows that all such matrices have rank $2$, with the only two linearly independent columns being the first two. If the linear recurrence is of higher order, say $m$, then the determinant is $0$ when $n>m$, and the rank of the matrix will be $m$.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            The resolution is remarkably simple (many thanks to obscurans' answer for the hint!) By the definition of the Fibonacci numbers, $F_k+F_k+1=F_k+2$ for all $k$. If $ngeq3$ then these numbers are going to be in the first three columns of every row. Hence the first three rows are linearly dependent, so the determinant is $0$. It follows from this that any such sequence following a linear recurrence (of the form $F_n=aF_n-1+bF_n-2$, $a,b$ are constant), with possibly different starting terms, also satisfies the stated conjecture. In fact, this shows that all such matrices have rank $2$, with the only two linearly independent columns being the first two. If the linear recurrence is of higher order, say $m$, then the determinant is $0$ when $n>m$, and the rank of the matrix will be $m$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 3 at 2:15

























            answered Dec 3 at 2:06









            YiFan

            2,0741419




            2,0741419







            • 2




              One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
              – obscurans
              Dec 3 at 2:11











            • @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
              – Spitemaster
              Dec 3 at 15:31










            • There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
              – obscurans
              Dec 4 at 2:52












            • 2




              One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
              – obscurans
              Dec 3 at 2:11











            • @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
              – Spitemaster
              Dec 3 at 15:31










            • There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
              – obscurans
              Dec 4 at 2:52







            2




            2




            One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
            – obscurans
            Dec 3 at 2:11





            One note: the matrix will have rank $leq$ the order of the linear recurrence, which is not necessarily 2.
            – obscurans
            Dec 3 at 2:11













            @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
            – Spitemaster
            Dec 3 at 15:31




            @obscurans Suppose that the matrix has rank $k$. Does that not mean that the linear recurrence can be rewritten as a linear recurrence of order $k$? I was under the impression that the order of a linear recurrence was the order of its simplest form, though I realize now that that may not be the case.
            – Spitemaster
            Dec 3 at 15:31












            There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
            – obscurans
            Dec 4 at 2:52




            There are two different things: a particular linear recurrence, which is an equation with $n$ degrees of freedom of solutions, vs a particular fixed sequence of numbers generated by some linear recurrence. The matrix having rank $k$ does mean a linear recurrence of order $k$ can generate this sequence of numbers.
            – obscurans
            Dec 4 at 2:52

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023500%2fa-pattern-in-determinants-of-fibonacci-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown






            Popular posts from this blog

            Peggy Mitchell

            Palaiologos

            The Forum (Inglewood, California)