Determinant is alternating over a commutative ring with $1$ In Section 11.4 of Dummit and Foote, they introduce a determinant function $\det$ on the ring of $n\times n$ matrices over a commutative ring $R$ with $1$ as 


*

*Any $n$-multilinear alternating form, where the $n$-tuples are the $n$ columns of the matrices in $M_{n\times n}(R)$, and

*$\det(I) = 1$ where $I$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix.
They then define a function
$$
\det(\alpha_{ij}) = \sum_{\sigma\in S_n}\operatorname{sgn}(\sigma)\alpha_{\sigma(1)1}\dotsb\alpha_{\sigma(n)n}
$$
and show that the determinant is unique, but they leave it as an exercise to show that the function $\det$ defined above is actually a determinant function.
Note that Dummit and Foote take alternating to mean that if two consecutive columns of the matrix $(\alpha_{ij})$ are equal, then the alternating form returns $0$ when applied to $(\alpha_{ij})$.
I am having trouble showing that $\det$ so-defined is alternating. I have managed to show that if a matrix $(\alpha_{ij})$ has two consecutive columns equal, say the $j$th and $j+1$st, then $\det(\alpha_{ij})=-\det(\alpha_{ij})$. I am not sure if this is sufficient to show that $\det(\alpha_{ij}) = 0$ since we are in a commutative ring with $1$, which may have zero divisors.
Is there an easy fix? I can supply my proof if need be. Thanks.

For a fully elaborated proof, I shall be lazy and just refer to Exercise 6.7 (e) in my Notes on the combinatorial fundamentals of algebra, version of 10 January 2019. Or the proof of property (iii) in §5.3.4 of Hartmut Laue, Determinants. The main idea is to split the sum $\sum\limits_{\sigma \in S_n} \ldots$ into a sum over all even permutations and a sum over all odd permutations, and show that the addends in the two sums mutually cancel, as Tom Gannon suggests.
However, there is also a way to derive the result from your $\det \left(\alpha_{i,j}\right) = - \det \left(\alpha_{i,j}\right)$ observation. Namely, fix $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $k \in \left\{1,2,\ldots,n-1\right\}$. Let a $k$-col-equal matrix be a matrix whose $k$-th column equals its $k+1$-st column. Your claim is that a $k$-col-equal matrix must have determinant $0$. Now, observe that you can derive $u = 0$ from $u = -u$ when $u$ is a polynomial over $\mathbb{Z}$ (for example). Thus, you can prove your claim whenever the entries of the $k$-col-equal matrix are polynomials over $\mathbb{Z}$ (because you have shown that each $k$-col-equal matrix $\left(\alpha_{i,j}\right)$ satisfies $\det \left(\alpha_{i,j}\right) = - \det \left(\alpha_{i,j}\right)$). In particular, your claim holds when the col-equal matrix is the "universal $k$-col-equal matrix", which is the matrix whose entries are indeterminates (in a polynomial ring over $\mathbb{Z}$) that are distinct except for the two columns that are supposed to be equal. (For example, the universal $2$-col-equal matrix for $n = 4$ is $\left(\begin{array}{cccc} x_{1,1} & x_{1,2} & x_{1,2} & x_{1,4} \\ x_{2,1} & x_{2,2} & x_{2,2} & x_{2,4} \\ x_{3,1} & x_{3,2} & x_{3,2} & x_{3,4} \\ x_{4,1} & x_{4,2} & x_{4,2} & x_{4,4} \end{array}\right)$, where the $x_{i,j}$ are distinct indeterminates in a polynomial ring over $\mathbb{Z}$.) But you can view an arbitrary $k$-col-equal matrix as a result of substituting concrete values for these indeterminates in the "universal $k$-col-equal matrix". Therefore, since your claim holds for the latter matrix, it must also hold for the former.
