You are here
Home ›permanent
Primary tabs
permanent
Definition of the permanent
Let be an matrix over a field (or even a commutative ring) , and its entries (with ranging over a set and over a set , each of elements).
The permanent of , denoted by , is given by
where is the set of all bijections . Usually and are identified with each other (and with the set of the first natural numbers, traditionally skipping 0) so that consists of the elements of the symmetric group , the group of permutations of objects.
In words: we want products of each time matrix elements chosen such that there’s one from each row and also one from each column . There are ways to pick those elements (for any permutation of the column indices relative to the row indices take the elements that end up in diagonal position). The permanent is the sum of those products. E.g. ()
@ O O O @ O O O @ @ O O O @ O O O @
O @ O + O O @ + @ O O + O O @ + @ O O + O @ O
O O @ @ O O O @ O O @ O O O @ @ O O
Comparison with the determinant
It is closely related to one of the ways to define the determinant,
where is the symmetry group of (isomorphic to ); the sign is for even permutations and for odd ones. E.g. ()
@ O O O @ O O O @ @ O O O @ O O O @
O @ O + O O @ + @ O O - O O @ - @ O O - O @ O
O O @ @ O O O @ O O @ O O O @ @ O O
Note two important differences though.
-
While the determinant enjoys the property that , the permanent has no such nice arithmetic properties.
-
In the definition of the determinant, we must have i.e. we must have a particular way in mind of matching rows to columns. A matrix to transform from one basis to another would be an example where this match is arbitrary. Different conventions which row goes with which column give two different values (one times the other) for the determinant. By contrast, the permanent is well defined for any and .
In the representation theory of groups (where the field is ) determinant and permanent are special cases of the immanent (there is an immanent for every character of ).
Some properties of the permanent
These follow immediately from the definition:
-
The permanent is “multilinear” in the rows and columns (i.e. linear in every one of them).
-
It is “homogeneous of degree ”, i.e. , where is a scalar (i.e. element of ).
-
When and are permutation matrices, .
-
.
-
.
-
-
when the permutations used are all even (which implies only one is used). This happens in a diagonal matrix, but also for instance in
Permanents find application in combinatorics, e.g. in enumerating Latin squares.
See also Van der Waerden’s permanent conjecture (now a theorem) for doubly stochastic matrices (where is ).
Note: some authors define something for non-square matrices they also call “permanent”.
Mathematics Subject Classification
15A15 Determinants, permanents, other special matrix functions- Forums
- Planetary Bugs
- HS/Secondary
- University/Tertiary
- Graduate/Advanced
- Industry/Practice
- Research Topics
- LaTeX help
- Math Comptetitions
- Math History
- Math Humor
- PlanetMath Comments
- PlanetMath System Updates and News
- PlanetMath help
- PlanetMath.ORG
- Strategic Communications Development
- The Math Pub
- Testing messages (ignore)
- Other useful stuff
Recent Activity
new question: Sorry to steal a few minutes of your time for this question, but i honestly don't know what else to do. by Whrazithar
new question: equality of the determinants of submatrices of an orthogonal matrix by ismayli
Jun 11
new correction: Typo by suitangi
Jun 2
new question: Creating another set with same cardinality. by hkkass
Jun 1
new image: ProblemOneRevised by unlord
new Education: Chapter II by rspuzio
May 31
new collection: The Calculus by Davis and Brenke by rspuzio
new question: Proofs by weixifan
new question: Summation Integration Question by trevor.nickle
May 27
new correction: typo+finite measure hypothesis by Filipe



Comments
Perm(A)*Perm(B)=Perm(AB) ?
Is it true that for any two matrices A,B:
Perm(A)*Perm(B)=Perm(AB)
where Perm(A) is the permanent of A.
(The equation is true for Determinants)
Re: Perm(A)*Perm(B)=Perm(AB) ?
If I'm not mistaken:
1 0 * 1 1 = 1 1
1 1 0 1 1 2
Permanents: 1 * 1 != 3
Regards
T.
(I'm not 100% sure about the complexity of Gauss algorithm for rationals, but my guess is that such a formula would give you a (way too) good way to compute the permanent, a problem that is #P-hard (cp. Jerrum et al., A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with nonnegative entries, JACM 51 (2004) and some survey article of Jerrum on the subject).