On the principal minors of the powers of a matrix

Abstract: We show that if $A$ is an $n\times n$-matrix, then the diagonal entries of each power $A^{m}$ are uniquely determined by the principal minors of $A$, and can be written as universal (integral) polynomials in the latter. Furthermore, if the latter all equal $1$, then so do the former. These results are inspired by Problem B5 on the Putnam contest 2021, and shed a new light on the behavior of minors under matrix multiplication.

\section{Introduction}

Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $A$ be an $n\times n$-matrix over $R$,
where $n$ is a nonnegative integer.

A \emph{principal submatrix} of $A$ means a matrix obtained from $A$ by
removing some rows and the corresponding columns (i.e., removing the $i_{1
$-th, $i_{2}$-th, $\ldots$, $i_{k}$-th rows and the $i_{1}$-th, $i_{2}$-th,
$\ldots$, $i_{k}$-th columns for some choice of $k$ integers $i_{1
,i_{2},\ldots,i_{k}$ satisfying $1\leq i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{k}\leq n$). In
particular, $A$ itself is a principal submatrix of $A$ (obtained for $k=0$).

A \emph{principal minor} of $A$ means the determinant of a principal submatrix
of $A$. In particular, each diagonal entry of $A$ is a principal minor of $A$
(being the determinant of a principal submatrix of size $1\times1$). In total,
$A$ has $2^{n}$ principal minors, including its own determinant $\det A$ as
well as the trivial principal minor $1$ (obtained as the determinant of a
$0\times0$ matrix, which is what remains when all rows and columns are removed).

Problem B5 on the \href{https://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/2021.pdf}{Putnam
contest 2021} asked for a proof of the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm.putnam}Assume that $R=\mathbb{Z}$. Assume that each principal minor
of $A$ is odd. Then, each principal minor of $A^{m}$ is odd whenever $m$ is a
nonnegative integer.
\end{theorem}

Without giving the solution away, it shall be noticed that essentially only
one proof is known (see \cite{Kedlaya} or \cite{Putnam-official-2021} for it),
and it is not as algebraic as the statement of Theorem \ref{thm.putnam} might
suggest. In particular, it is unclear if the theorem remains valid if
\textquotedblleft odd\textquotedblright\ is replaced by \textquotedblleft
congruent to $1$ modulo $4$\textquotedblright, or if $R$ is replaced by
another ring; the official solution (most of which originates in a result by
Dobrinskaya \cite[Lemma 3.3]{MasPan}) certainly does not apply to such
extensions. An approach that is definitely doomed is to try expressing the
principal minors of a power $A^{m}$ in terms of those of $A$. The following
example shows that the latter do not uniquely determine the former:

\begin{example}
\label{exa.CD}Se
\[
C:
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b & 1 & 1\\
c & d & 1 & 1\\
1 & 1 & p & q\\
1 & 1 & r & s
\end{pmatrix}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ D:
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b & 1 & 1\\
c & d & 1 & 1\\
1 & 1 & p & r\\
1 & 1 & q & s
\end{pmatrix}
\]
for some $a,b,c,d,p,q,r,s\in R$. Then, the matrices $C$ and $D$ have the same
principal minors, but their squares $C^{2}$ and $D^{2}$ differ in their
$\left\{  2,3\right\}  $-principal minor (i.e., their principal minor obtained
by removing the $1$-st and $4$-th rows and columns) unless $\left(
q-r\right)  \left(  b-c\right)  =0$. Thus, the principal minors of the square
of a matrix are not uniquely determined by the principal minors of the matrix itself.
\end{example}

This example is inspired by \cite[Example 3]{HarLoe}, where further related
discussion of matrices with equal principal minors can be found.

\section{Nevertheless...}

However, not all is lost. Among the principal minors of $A^{m}$, the simplest
ones (besides $1$) are those of size $1\times1$, that is, the diagonal entries
of $A^{m}$. It turns out that these diagonal entries are indeed uniquely
determined by the principal minors of $A$, and even better, they can be
written as universal polynomials\footnote{A \textquotedblleft universal
polynomial\textquotedblright\ means a polynomial with integer coefficients
that depends neither on $A$ nor on $R$ (but can depend on $m$ as well as on
the location of the diagonal entry).} in the latter. That is, we have the
following:\footnote{An \emph{integer polynomial} means a polynomial with
integer coefficients.}

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm.main1}Let $n$ and $m$ be nonnegative integers, and let
$i\in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $. Then, there exists an integer
polynomial $P_{n,i,m}$ in $2^{n}$ indeterminates that is independent of $R$
and $A$, and that has the following property: If $A$ is any $n\times n$-matrix
over any commutative ring $R$, then the $i$-th diagonal entry of $A^{m}$ can
be obtained by substituting the principal minors of $A$ into $P_{n,i,m}$. In
particular, the principal minors of $A$ uniquely determine this entry.
\end{theorem}

Let us verify this for $m=2$: If we denote the $\left(  i,j\right)  $-th entry
of a matrix $B$ by $B_{i,j}$, then each diagonal entry of $A^{2}$ has the for
\begin{align*}
\left(  A^{2}\right)  _{i,i}  &  =\sum_{j=1}^{n}A_{i,j}A_{j,i}=A_{i,i
^{2}+\sum_{j\neq i}\underbrace{A_{i,j}A_{j,i}}_{=A_{i,i}A_{j,j}-\det\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
A_{i,i} & A_{i,j}\\
A_{j,i} & A_{j,j
\end{array}
\right)  }\\
&  =A_{i,i}^{2}+\sum_{j\neq i}\left(  A_{i,i}A_{j,j}-\det\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
A_{i,i} & A_{i,j}\\
A_{j,i} & A_{j,j
\end{array}
\right)  \right)  ,
\end{align*}
which is visibly an integer polynomial in the principal minors of $A$ (since
all the $A_{i,i}$ and $A_{j,j}$ and $\det\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
A_{i,i} & A_{i,j}\\
A_{j,i} & A_{j,j
\end{array}
\right)  $ are principal minors of $A$). This verifies Theorem \ref{thm.main1}
for $m=2$. Such explicit computations remain technically possible for higher
values of $m$, but become longer and more cumbersome as $m$ increases.

The goal of this note is to prove Theorem \ref{thm.main1}. We will first show
the following theorem, which looks weaker but is essentially equivalent:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm.main2}Let $n$ and $m$ be nonnegative integers. Let $R$ be a
commutative ring. Let $A$ be an $n\times n$-matrix over $R$. Let $\mathcal{P}$
be the subring of $R$ generated by all principal minors of $A$. Then, all
diagonal entries of $A^{m}$ belong to $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{theorem}

Before we prove this, let us explain how Theorem \ref{thm.main1} can be easily
derived from Theorem \ref{thm.main2}:

\begin{proof}
[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main1} using Theorem \ref{thm.main2}.]The notation
$B_{i,j}$ shall denote the $\left(  i,j\right)  $-th entry of any matrix $B$.

Let $\mathbf{R}$ be the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}\left[  x_{i,j
\ \mid\ 1\leq i\leq n\text{ and }1\leq j\leq n\right]  $ in $n^{2}$
independent indeterminates $x_{i,j}$ over $\mathbb{Z}$. (For instance, if
$n=2$, then $\mathbf{R}=\mathbb{Z}\left[  x_{1,1},\ x_{1,2},\ x_{2,1
,\ x_{2,2}\right]  $.) Let $\mathbf{A}$ be the $n\times n$-matrix over
$\mathbf{R}$ whose $\left(  i,j\right)  $-th entry is $x_{i,j}$ for each
$\left(  i,j\right)  \in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  ^{2}$. This matrix
$\mathbf{A}$ is known as \textquotedblleft the general $n\times n
-matrix\textquotedblright, since any matrix $A$ over any commutative ring can
be obtained from it by substituting appropriate elements (viz., the entries of
$A$) for the variables $x_{i,j}$. This very property will be crucial to the
argument that follows.

Let $\mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{p}_{2^{n}}$ be the $2^{n}$
principal minors of $\mathbf{A}$ (numbered in some order). Let $\mathcal{P}$
denote the subring of $\mathbf{R}$ generated by all these principal minors of
$\mathbf{A}$. Theorem \ref{thm.main2} (applied to $\mathbf{R}$ and
$\mathbf{A}$ instead of $R$ and $A$) shows that all diagonal entries of
$\mathbf{A}^{m}$ belong to $\mathcal{P}$. In other words, for each
$i\in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $, we have $\left(  \mathbf{A}^{m}\right)
_{i,i}\in\mathcal{P}$.

Fix $i\in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $. As we just showed, we have $\left(
\mathbf{A}^{m}\right)  _{i,i}\in\mathcal{P}$. In other words, there exists an
integer polynomial $P_{n,i,m}$ in $2^{n}$ indeterminates such that $\left(
\mathbf{A}^{m}\right)  _{i,i}=P_{n,i,m}\left(  \mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p
_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{p}_{2^{n}}\right)  $ (since $\mathcal{P}$ is the subring
of $\mathbf{R}$ generated by $\mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2},\ldots
,\mathbf{p}_{2^{n}}$). Consider this polynomial $P_{n,i,m}$; note that it is
independent of $R$ and $A$ (by its very construction).

Now, consider a commutative ring $R$ and an $n\times n$-matrix $A$ over $R$.
Let $p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{2^{n}}$ be the $2^{n}$ principal minors of $A$
(numbered in the same order as $\mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2},\ldots
,\mathbf{p}_{2^{n}}$). Let $f:\mathbf{R}\rightarrow R$ be the $\mathbb{Z
$-algebra homomorphism that sends each indeterminate $x_{i,j}$ to the $\left(
i,j\right)  $-th entry $A_{i,j}$ of $A$. This homomorphism $f$ therefore sends
each entry of the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ to the corresponding entry of $A$, and
thus also sends each principal minor of $\mathbf{A}$ to the corresponding
principal minor of $A$ (since a principal minor is a certain signed sum of
products of entries of the matrix). In other words
\begin{equation}
f\left(  \mathbf{p}_{i}\right)  =p_{i}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{for each
i\in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,2^{n}\right\}  . \label{pf.thm.main1.1
\end{equation}

However, $P_{n,i,m}$ is an integer polynomial, and thus \textquotedblleft
commutes\textquotedblright\ with any $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra homomorphism --
i.e., if $a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{2^{n}}$ are any $2^{n}$ elements of a
commutative ring, and if $g$ is any $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra homomorphism out of
that ring, the
\[
g\left(  P_{n,i,m}\left(  a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{2^{n}}\right)  \right)
=P_{n,i,m}\left(  g\left(  a_{1}\right)  ,\ g\left(  a_{2}\right)
,\ \ldots,\ g\left(  a_{2^{n}}\right)  \right)  .
\]
Applying this to $a_{i}=\mathbf{p}_{i}$ and $g=f$, we obtai
\begin{align*}
f\left(  P_{n,i,m}\left(  \mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{p
_{2^{n}}\right)  \right)   &  =P_{n,i,m}\left(  f\left(  \mathbf{p
_{1}\right)  ,\ f\left(  \mathbf{p}_{2}\right)  ,\ \ldots,\ f\left(
\mathbf{p}_{2^{n}}\right)  \right) \\
&  =P_{n,i,m}\left(  p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{2^{n}}\right)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left(  \text{by (\ref{pf.thm.main1.1})}\right)  .
\end{align*}
In view of $\left(  \mathbf{A}^{m}\right)  _{i,i}=P_{n,i,m}\left(
\mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{p}_{2^{n}}\right)  $, we can
rewrite this a
\begin{equation}
f\left(  \left(  \mathbf{A}^{m}\right)  _{i,i}\right)  =P_{n,i,m}\left(
p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{2^{n}}\right)  . \label{pf.thm.main1.2
\end{equation}

However, the $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra homomorphism $f$ sends each entry of the
matrix $\mathbf{A}$ to the corresponding entry of $A$, and therefore also
sends each entry of the matrix $\mathbf{A}^{m}$ to the corresponding entry of
$A^{m}$ (since the entries of $\mathbf{A}^{m}$ are certain sums of products of
entries of $\mathbf{A}$, whereas the entries of $A^{m}$ are the same sums of
products of entries of $A$). In other words, $f\left(  \left(  \mathbf{A
^{m}\right)  _{u,v}\right)  =\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{u,v}$ for any
$u,v\in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $. Thus, in particular, $f\left(
\left(  \mathbf{A}^{m}\right)  _{i,i}\right)  =\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{i,i}$.
Comparing this with (\ref{pf.thm.main1.2}), we obtain $\left(  A^{m}\right)
_{i,i}=P_{n,i,m}\left(  p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{2^{n}}\right)  $. In other
words, the $i$-th diagonal entry of $A^{m}$ can be obtained by substituting
the principal minors of $A$ into $P_{n,i,m}$ (since $p_{1},p_{2
,\ldots,p_{2^{n}}$ are these principal minors of $A$). This proves Theorem
\ref{thm.main1}.
\end{proof}

\section{Notations}

In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm.main2}, we will need some more notations
regarding matrices and their minors:

\begin{itemize}
\item If $m\in\mathbb{Z}$, then $\left[  m\right]  $ shall denote the set
$\left\{  1,2,\ldots,m\right\}  $.

\item If $B$ is a $u\times v$-matrix and if $i\in\left[  u\right]  $ and
$j\in\left[  v\right]  $, then $B_{i,j}$ shall denote the $\left(  i,j\right)
$-th entry of $B$.

\item If $u$ and $v$ are two nonnegative integers, and if $a_{i,j}$ is an
element of a ring for each $i\in\left[  u\right]  $ and $j\in\left[  v\right]
$, then the notation $\left(  a_{i,j}\right)  _{1\leq i\leq u,\ 1\leq j\leq
v}$ means the $u\times v$-matrix whose $\left(  i,j\right)  $-th entry is
$a_{i,j}$ for all $i\in\left[  u\right]  $ and $j\in\left[  v\right]  $.

\item If $B$ is a $u\times v$-matrix, and if $\left(  i_{1},i_{2},\ldots
,i_{p}\right)  \in\left[  u\right]  ^{p}$ and $\left(  j_{1},j_{2
,\ldots,j_{q}\right)  \in\left[  v\right]  ^{q}$ are two sequences of
integers, then $\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots,i_{p}
^{j_{1},j_{2},\ldots,j_{q}}B$ shall denote the $p\times q$-matrix $\left(
B_{i_{x},j_{y}}\right)  _{1\leq x\leq p,\ 1\leq y\leq q}$. If $i_{1
<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{p}$ and $j_{1}<j_{2}<\cdots<j_{q}$, then this matrix is a
submatrix of $B$.

\item If $B$ is a $u\times v$-matrix, and if $I$ is a subset of $\left[
u\right]  $, and if $J$ is a subset of $\left[  v\right]  $, then
$\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{I}^{J}B$ shall denote the submatrix
$\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots,i_{p}}^{j_{1},j_{2
,\ldots,j_{q}}B$ of $B$, where $i_{1},i_{2},\ldots,i_{p}$ are the elements of
$I$ in increasing order, and where $j_{1},j_{2},\ldots,j_{q}$ are the elements
of $J$ in increasing order.

Thus, in particular, if $B$ is an $n\times n$-matrix, and if $I$ is a subset
of $\left[  n\right]  $, then $\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{I}^{I}B$ is a
principal submatrix of $B$, so that $\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{I}^{I}B\right)  $ is a principal minor of $B$.

\item If $B$ is an $n\times n$-matrix, and if $i,j\in\left[  n\right]  $, then
$B_{\sim i,\sim j}$ shall denote the submatrix of $B$ obtained by removing the
$i$-th row and the $j$-th column from $B$. In other words, $B_{\sim i,\sim j}$
denotes the matrix $\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{\left[  n\right]
\setminus\left\{  i\right\}  }^{\left[  n\right]  \setminus\left\{  j\right\}
}B$.

\item If $B$ is an $n\times n$-matrix, then $\operatorname*{adj}B$ shall mean
the \emph{adjugate matrix} of $B$. This is defined as the $n\times n$-matrix
$\left(  \left(  -1\right)  ^{i+j}\det\left(  B_{\sim j,\sim i}\right)
\right)  _{1\leq i\leq n,\ 1\leq j\leq n}$.

\item If $m$ is a nonnegative integer, then $I_{m}$ denotes the $m\times m$
identity matrix.
\end{itemize}

We will need the following properties of determinants:

\begin{itemize}
\item For any $n\times n$-matrix $B$, we hav
\begin{equation}
B\cdot\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  =\left(  \operatorname*{adj
B\right)  \cdot B=\left(  \det B\right)  \cdot I_{n}. \label{eq.adj.BadjB
\end{equation}
(This is the main property of adjugates; see, e.g., \cite[Theorem
6.100]{detnotes} for a proof.)

\item For any commutative ring $S$, any $m\times m$-matrix $B$ and any element
$x\in S$, we hav
\begin{equation}
\det\left(  B+xI_{m}\right)  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  m\right]  }\det\left(
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}B\right)  \cdot x^{m-\left\vert
P\right\vert }. \label{eq.det(B+xI)0
\end{equation}
(This is a folklore result -- essentially the explicit formula for the
characteristic polynomial of a matrix in terms of its principal minors. The
proof is straightforward: Expand the left hand side into a sum of products,
and combine products according to \textquotedblleft which factors come from
$B$ and which factors come from $xI_{m}$\textquotedblright. See
\cite[Proposition 6.4.29]{21s} or \cite[Corollary 6.164]{detnotes} for
detailed proofs.)
\end{itemize}

For any ring $S$, we consider the univariate polynomial ring $S\left[
t\right]  $ as well as the ring $S\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $ of
formal power series. Of course, $S\left[  t\right]  $ is a subring of
$S\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $. Note that the ring $S$ needs not be
commutative for $S\left[  t\right]  $ and $S\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]
$ to be defined.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main2}}

We now finally step to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main2}.

\begin{proof}
[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main2}.]We must prove that all diagonal entries of
$A^{m}$ belong to $\mathcal{P}$. In other words, we must prove that $\left(
A^{m}\right)  _{i,i}\in\mathcal{P}$ for each $i\in\left[  n\right]  $.

It is well-known that a polynomial over a matrix ring is \textquotedblleft
essentially the same as\textquotedblright\ a matrix with polynomial entries.
In other words, we can identify the ring $R^{n\times n}\left[  t\right]  $
with the ring $\left(  R\left[  t\right]  \right)  ^{n\times n}$ using a
straightforward ring isomorphism (which sends each $\sum_{i\geq0}C_{i}t^{i}\in
R^{n\times n}\left[  t\right]  $ to $\sum_{i\geq0}C_{i}t^{i}\in\left(
R\left[  t\right]  \right)  ^{n\times n}$). In the same way, we identify the
ring $R^{n\times n}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $ with the ring $\left(
R\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  \right)  ^{n\times n}$.

Let $B$ be the matrix $I_{n}-tA$ in the power series ring $R^{n\times
n}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $. This matrix $B=I_{n}-tA$ is
invertible, and its inverse i
\begin{equation}
B^{-1}=I_{n}+tA+t^{2}A^{2}+t^{3}A^{3}+\cdots. \label{eq.In-tA.inv
\end{equation}
(This can be proved by directly verifying that $I_{n}+tA+t^{2}A^{2}+t^{3
A^{3}+\cdots$ is inverse to $I_{n}-tA$. Indeed, both products $\left(
I_{n}+tA+t^{2}A^{2}+t^{3}A^{3}+\cdots\right)  \cdot\left(  I_{n}-tA\right)  $
and $\left(  I_{n}-tA\right)  \cdot\left(  I_{n}+tA+t^{2}A^{2}+t^{3
A^{3}+\cdots\right)  $ turn, upon expanding, into sums that telescope to
$I_{n}$.)

Since the matrix $B$ is invertible, its determinant $\det B$ is invertible as
well (since $\left(  \det B\right)  \cdot\left(  \det\left(  B^{-1}\right)
\right)  =\det\left(  \underbrace{BB^{-1}}_{=I_{n}}\right)  =\det\left(
I_{n}\right)  =1$).

Now, recall that we must prove that $\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{i,i
\in\mathcal{P}$ for each $i\in\left[  n\right]  $. So let us fix $i\in\left[
n\right]  $. Then, (\ref{eq.In-tA.inv}) yield
\begin{align*}
\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i}  &  =\left(  I_{n}+tA+t^{2}A^{2}+t^{3
A^{3}+\cdots\right)  _{i,i}\\
&  =\left(  I_{n}\right)  _{i,i}+tA_{i,i}+t^{2}\left(  A^{2}\right)
_{i,i}+t^{3}\left(  A^{3}\right)  _{i,i}+\cdots.
\end{align*}
Hence, the $t^{m}$-coefficient of the power series $\left(  B^{-1}\right)
_{i,i}\in R\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $ is $\left(  A^{m}\right)
_{i,i}$. Thus, in order to prove that $\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{i,i
\in\mathcal{P}$ (which is our goal), it suffices to show that all coefficients
of the power series $\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i}$ belong to $\mathcal{P}$.
In other words, it suffices to show that $\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i
\in\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $. This is what we shall now show.

From (\ref{eq.adj.BadjB}), we obtain $B\cdot\left(  \operatorname*{adj
B\right)  =\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  \cdot B=\left(  \det B\right)
\cdot I_{n}$, so that
\[
B^{-1}=\dfrac{1}{\det B}\cdot\operatorname*{adj}B.
\]
Hence
\begin{equation}
\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i}=\dfrac{1}{\det B}\cdot\left(
\operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}. \label{sol.detB-1ii=
\end{equation}
Our next goal is to show that both factors $\dfrac{1}{\det B}$ and $\left(
\operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}$ on the right hand side of this equality
belong to $\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $. This will then
entail that $\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i}\in\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[
t\right]  \right]  $ as well, and we will be done.

From $B=I_{n}-tA=-tA+1I_{n}$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\det B  &  =\det\left(  -tA+1I_{n}\right)  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]
}\det\left(  \underbrace{\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(
-tA\right)  }_{=-t\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}A}\right)
\cdot\underbrace{1^{n-\left\vert P\right\vert }}_{=1}\nonumber\\
&  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\text{by (\ref{eq.det(B+xI)0}), applied to }n\text{, }R\left[  \left[
t\right]  \right]  \text{, }-tA\text{ and }1\\
\text{instead of }m\text{, }S\text{, }B\text{ and }x
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber\\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\underbrace{\det\left(
-t\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}A\right)  }_{=\left(  -t\right)
^{\left\vert P\right\vert }\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P
^{P}A\right)  }\nonumber\\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert
P\right\vert }\underbrace{\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P
^{P}A\right)  }_{\substack{\in\mathcal{P}\\\text{(since }\det\left(
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}A\right)  \text{ is}\\\text{a principal
minor of }A\text{)}}}\label{sol.detB=.1}\\
&  \in\mathcal{P}\left[  t\right]  \subseteq\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[
t\right]  \right]  .\nonumber
\end{align}
Thus, $\det B$ is a formal power series over $\mathcal{P}$. Moreover,
(\ref{sol.detB=.1}) shows that this power series has constant term $1$ (since
the only addend in the sum in (\ref{sol.detB=.1}) that contributes to the
constant term is the addend for $P=\varnothing$, but this addend is
$\underbrace{\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert \varnothing\right\vert }
_{=1}\underbrace{\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{\varnothing
}^{\varnothing}A\right)  }_{\substack{=1\\\text{(since the }0\times
0\text{-matrix}\\\text{has determinant }1\text{)}}}=1$). Thus, this power
series is invertible in $\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $.
Therefore
\begin{equation}
\dfrac{1}{\det B}\in\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  .
\label{sol.1/detB-in
\end{equation}

Now, recall the definition of an adjugate matrix. This definition yield
\begin{align}
\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}  &  =\underbrace{\left(
-1\right)  ^{i+i}}_{=1}\det\left(  B_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)  =\det\left(
B_{\sim i,\sim i}\right) \nonumber\\
&  =\det\left(  \left(  -tA+1I_{n}\right)  _{\sim i,\sim i}\right)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left(  \text{since }B=-tA+1I_{n}\right) \nonumber\\
&  =\det\left(  -tA_{\sim i,\sim i}+1I_{n-1}\right)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left(  \text{since }\left(  -tA+1I_{n}\right)  _{\sim
i,\sim i}=-tA_{\sim i,\sim i}+1I_{n-1}\right) \nonumber\\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n-1\right]  }\det\left(
\underbrace{\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  -tA_{\sim i,\sim
i}\right)  }_{=-t\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim
i}\right)  }\right)  \cdot\underbrace{1^{n-1-\left\vert P\right\vert }
_{=1}\nonumber\\
&  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\text{by (\ref{eq.det(B+xI)0}), applied to }n-1\text{, }R\left[  \left[
t\right]  \right]  \text{, }-tA_{\sim i,\sim i}\text{ and }1\\
\text{instead of }m\text{, }S\text{, }B\text{ and }x
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber\\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n-1\right]  }\underbrace{\det\left(
-t\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)
\right)  }_{=\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert P\right\vert }\det\left(
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)  \right)
}\nonumber\\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n-1\right]  }\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert
P\right\vert }\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim
i,\sim i}\right)  \right)  . \label{sol.adjBii=.1
\end{align}

Now, let $P$ be an arbitrary subset of $\left[  n-1\right]  $. Write this
subset $P$ in the form $P=\left\{  p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{r}\right\}  $, where
$p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{r}$. Furthermore, let $g\in\left\{  0,1,\ldots
,r\right\}  $ be the element that satisfie
\[
p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{g}<i\leq p_{g+1}<p_{g+2}<\cdots<p_{r}.
\]
(Here, $g$ will be $0$ if all elements of $P$ are $\geq i$, and $g$ will be
$r$ if all elements of $P$ are $<i$.) Then, due to the combinatorial nature of
removing rows and columns, we hav
\[
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)
=\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P^{\prime}}^{P^{\prime}}A,
\]
where $P^{\prime}$ is the subset $\left\{  p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{g}\right\}
\cup\left\{  p_{g+1}+1,p_{g+2}+1,\ldots,p_{r}+1\right\}  $ of $\left[
n\right]  $. Hence, $\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim
i,\sim i}\right)  $ is a principal submatrix of $A$. Therefore, its
determinant $\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim
i,\sim i}\right)  \right)  $ is a principal minor of $A$, thus belongs to
$\mathcal{P}$.

Forget that we fixed $P$. We thus have shown that $\det\left(
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)  \right)
\in\mathcal{P}$ for each $P\subseteq\left[  n-1\right]  $. Therefore,
(\ref{sol.adjBii=.1}) become
\begin{equation}
\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}=\sum_{P\subseteq\left[
n-1\right]  }\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert P\right\vert }\underbrace{\det
\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)
\right)  }_{\in\mathcal{P}}\in\mathcal{P}\left[  t\right]  \subseteq
\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  . \label{sol.adjBii-in
\end{equation}

Now, (\ref{sol.detB-1ii=}) become
\[
\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i}=\underbrace{\dfrac{1}{\det B}}_{\substack{\in
\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  \\\text{(by (\ref{sol.1/detB-in
))}}}\cdot\underbrace{\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i
}_{\substack{\in\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  \\\text{(by
(\ref{sol.adjBii-in}))}}}\in\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]
\cdot\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  \subseteq\mathcal{P}\left[
\left[  t\right]  \right]  .
\]
As explained above, this completes our proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main2}.
\end{proof}

Somewhat regrettably, the above proof is the slickest I am aware of. A
more-or-less equivalent proof can be given avoiding the use of power series
(using \cite[Proposition 3.9 and Lemma 3.11]{trach} instead). A more
pedestrian (but harder to formalize) proof uses the Cayley--Hamilton theorem
and a variant of the inclusion/exclusion principle.

\section{Variants}

A counterpart of Theorem \ref{thm.main2} for the off-diagonal entries of
$A^{m}$ exists as well:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm.main2off}Let $n$, $m$, $R$, $A$ and $\mathcal{P}$ be as in Theorem
\ref{thm.main2}.

Let $i$ and $j$ be two distinct elements of $\left[  n\right]  $. An $\left(
i,j\right)  $\emph{-quasiprincipal minor} of $A$ shall mean a determinant of
the form $\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{I}^{J}A\right)  $, where
$I$ and $J$ are two subsets of $\left[  n\right]  $ satisfyin
\[
i\in I\text{ and }j\in J\text{ and }\left\vert I\right\vert =\left\vert
J\right\vert \text{ and }J=\left(  I\setminus\left\{  i\right\}  \right)
\cup\left\{  j\right\}  .
\]
(For instance, if $n\geq7$, then $\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{\left\{  1,2,7\right\}  }^{\left\{  2,5,7\right\}  }A\right)  $ is
a $\left(  1,5\right)  $-quasiprincipal minor of $A$.)

Let $\mathcal{K}_{i,j}$ be the $\mathbb{Z}$-submodule of $R$ spanned by all
$\left(  i,j\right)  $-quasiprincipal minors of $A$. Then,
\[
\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{i,j}\in\mathcal{P}\cdot\mathcal{K}_{i,j}.
\]

\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
[Proof outline.]This is similar to our above proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main2},
but some changes are needed. Most importantly, instead of proving that
$\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}\in\mathcal{P}\left[  \left[
t\right]  \right]  $, we now need to show that $\left(  \operatorname*{adj
B\right)  _{i,j}\in\mathcal{K}_{i,j}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $ (that
is, that all coefficients of the power series $\left(  \operatorname*{adj
B\right)  _{j,i}$ belong to $\mathcal{K}_{i,j}$). To do so, we apply the
definition of the adjugate matrix to see that
\begin{equation}
\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,j}=\left(  -1\right)  ^{j+i
\det\left(  B_{\sim j,\sim i}\right)  . \label{pf.thm.main2off.1
\end{equation}
We can simplify $B_{\sim j,\sim i}$ further to $-tA_{\sim j,\sim i}+\left(
I_{n}\right)  _{\sim j,\sim i}$ (since $B=I_{n}-tA=-tA+I_{n}$), but
unfortunately this is not the same as $-tA_{\sim j,\sim i}+1I_{n-1}$, and thus
we can no longer apply (\ref{eq.det(B+xI)0}). Instead, we use a trick:

\begin{itemize}
\item We define $A^{\prime}$ to be the matrix obtained from $-tA$ by replacing
the $j$-th row by $\left(  0,0,\ldots,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0\right)  $, where the
only entry equal to $1$ is in the $i$-th position.

\item We define $I_{n}^{\prime}$ to be the matrix obtained from $I_{n}$ by
replacing the $1$ in the $j$-th row by a $0$.

\item We define $B^{\prime}$ to be the matrix obtained from $B$ by replacing
the $j$-th row by $\left(  0,0,\ldots,0,1,0,0,\ldots,0\right)  $, where the
only entry equal to $1$ is in the $i$-th position.
\end{itemize}

Laplace expansion along the $j$-th row shows that
\[
\det\left(  B^{\prime}\right)  =\left(  -1\right)  ^{j+i}\det\left(  \left(
B^{\prime}\right)  _{\sim j,\sim i}\right)  =\left(  -1\right)  ^{j+i
\det\left(  B_{\sim j,\sim i}\right)
\]
(since the matrix $B^{\prime}$ differs from $B$ only in the $j$-th row, and
thus we have $\left(  B^{\prime}\right)  _{\sim j,\sim i}=B_{\sim j,\sim i}$).
Comparing this with (\ref{pf.thm.main2off.1}), we fin
\begin{equation}
\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,j}=\det\left(  B^{\prime}\right)  .
\label{pf.thm.main2off.2
\end{equation}

Furthermore, recall that $B=I_{n}-tA=-tA+I_{n}$. Thus, $B^{\prime}=A^{\prime
}+I_{n}^{\prime}$ (based on how $A^{\prime}$, $I_{n}^{\prime}$ and $B^{\prime
}$ were constructed).

On the other hand, the definition of $I_{n}^{\prime}$ shows that
$I_{n}^{\prime}$ is a diagonal $n\times n$-matrix with diagonal entries
$1,1,\ldots,1,0,1,1,\ldots,1$, where the only diagonal entry equal to $0$ is
in the $j$-th position. However, another classical fact about determinants
(\cite[Theorem 6.4.26]{21s}, \cite[Corollary 6.162]{detnotes}) shows that if
$C$ is any $n\times n$-matrix, and if $D$ is a diagonal $n\times n$-matrix
with diagonal entries $d_{1},d_{2},\ldots,d_{n}$, the
\[
\det\left(  C+D\right)  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\det\left(
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}C\right)  \cdot\prod_{k\in\left[
n\right]  \setminus P}d_{k}.
\]
We can apply this to $C=A^{\prime}$ and $D=I_{n}^{\prime}$ and $\left(
d_{1},d_{2},\ldots,d_{n}\right)  =\underbrace{\left(  1,1,\ldots
,1,0,1,1,\ldots,1\right)  }_{\text{the }0\text{ is in the }j\text{-th
position}}$, and thus obtai
\begin{align*}
&  \det\left(  A^{\prime}+I_{n}^{\prime}\right) \\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A^{\prime}\right)  \right)  \cdot\prod_{k\in\left[
n\right]  \setminus P
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if }k\neq j;\\
0, & \text{if }k=j
\end{cases}
\\
&  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left(  \text{since the }k\text{-th
diagonal entry of }I_{n}^{\prime}\text{ is
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if }k\neq j;\\
0, & \text{if }k=j
\end{cases}
\right) \\
&  =\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A^{\prime}\right)  \right)  \cdo
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if }j\notin\left[  n\right]  \setminus P;\\
0, & \text{if }j\in\left[  n\right]  \setminus P
\end{cases}
\\
&  =\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\notin\left[  n\right]
\setminus P}}\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(
A^{\prime}\right)  \right)  =\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]
;\\j\in P}}\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A^{\prime
}\right)  \right) \\
&  =\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\in P\text{ and }i\in
P}}\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A^{\prime}\right)
\right)  +\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\in P\text{ and
}i\notin P}}\underbrace{\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P
^{P}\left(  A^{\prime}\right)  \right)  }_{\substack{=0\\\text{(since all
entries in the }j\text{-th row of }A^{\prime}\\\text{are }0\text{ except for
the }i\text{-th entry, and thus}\\\text{the matrix }\operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A^{\prime}\right)  \text{ has a zero row)}}}\\
&  =\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\in P\text{ and }i\in
P}}\underbrace{\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(
A^{\prime}\right)  \right)  }_{\substack{=\pm\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{P\setminus\left\{  j\right\}  }^{P\setminus\left\{  i\right\}
}\left(  -tA\right)  \right)  \\\text{(by Laplace expansion along the
row}\\\text{that was the }j\text{-th row of }A^{\prime}\text{)}
}=\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\in P\text{ and }i\in P
}\pm\underbrace{\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P\setminus\left\{
j\right\}  }^{P\setminus\left\{  i\right\}  }\left(  -tA\right)  \right)
}_{=\pm t^{\left\vert P\right\vert -1}\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub
\nolimits_{P\setminus\left\{  j\right\}  }^{P\setminus\left\{  i\right\}
}A\right)  }\\
&  =\sum_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\in P\text{ and }i\in
P}}\pm t^{\left\vert P\right\vert -1}\underbrace{\det\left(
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P\setminus\left\{  j\right\}  }^{P\setminus
\left\{  i\right\}  }A\right)  }_{\substack{\in\mathcal{K}_{i,j}\\\text{(since
}\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P\setminus\left\{  j\right\}
}^{P\setminus\left\{  i\right\}  }A\right)  \text{ is}\\\text{an }\left(
i,j\right)  \text{-quasiprincipal minor of }A\text{)}}}\in\sum
_{\substack{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  ;\\j\in P\text{ and }i\in P}}\pm
t^{\left\vert P\right\vert -1}\mathcal{K}_{i,j}\subseteq\mathcal{K
_{i,j}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  .
\end{align*}
In view of $B^{\prime}=A^{\prime}+I_{n}^{\prime}$, this rewrites as
$\det\left(  B^{\prime}\right)  \in\mathcal{K}_{i,j}\left[  \left[  t\right]
\right]  $. Hence, (\ref{pf.thm.main2off.2}) becomes $\left(
\operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,j}=\det\left(  B^{\prime}\right)
\in\mathcal{K}_{i,j}\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $. Having showed this,
we can finish the proof as we did for Theorem \ref{thm.main2}.
\end{proof}

Another variant of Theorem \ref{thm.main2} is the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm.main3}Let $n$ and $m$ be nonnegative integers. Let $R$ be a
commutative ring. Let $A$ be an $n\times n$-matrix over $R$. Assume that all
principal minors of $A$ equal $1$. Then, all diagonal entries of $A^{m}$ equal
$1$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Follow the above proof of Theorem \ref{thm.main2}. From (\ref{sol.detB=.1}),
we obtai
\[
\det B=\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert
P\right\vert }\underbrace{\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P
^{P}A\right)  }_{\substack{=1\\\text{(by assumption, since
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}A\\\text{is a principal minor of
}A\text{)}}}=\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]  }\left(  -t\right)
^{\left\vert P\right\vert }=\left(  1-t\right)  ^{n
\]
(since the binomial formula yields $\left(  1-t\right)  ^{n}=\sum_{k=0
^{n}\dbinom{n}{k}\left(  -t\right)  ^{k}=\sum_{P\subseteq\left[  n\right]
}\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert P\right\vert }$). Let $i\in\left\{
1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $. From (\ref{sol.adjBii=.1}), we obtai
\[
\left(  \operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}=\sum_{P\subseteq\left[
n-1\right]  }\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert P\right\vert }\underbrace{\det
\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)
\right)  }_{\substack{=1\\\text{(by assumption,}\\\text{since
\operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{P}^{P}\left(  A_{\sim i,\sim i}\right)
\\\text{is a principal minor of }A\text{)}}}=\sum_{P\subseteq\left[
n-1\right]  }\left(  -t\right)  ^{\left\vert P\right\vert }=\left(
1-t\right)  ^{n-1
\]
(again by the binomial formula). Now, (\ref{sol.detB-1ii=}) become
\begin{align*}
\left(  B^{-1}\right)  _{i,i}  &  =\dfrac{1}{\det B}\cdot\left(
\operatorname*{adj}B\right)  _{i,i}=\underbrace{\left(  \operatorname*{adj
B\right)  _{i,i}}_{=\left(  1-t\right)  ^{n-1}}\diagup\underbrace{\left(  \det
B\right)  }_{=\left(  1-t\right)  ^{n}}=\left(  1-t\right)  ^{n-1
\diagup\left(  1-t\right)  ^{n}\\
&  =\dfrac{1}{1-t}=1+t+t^{2}+t^{3}+\cdots.
\end{align*}
Thus, the $t^{m}$-coefficient of the power series $\left(  B^{-1}\right)
_{i,i}\in R\left[  \left[  t\right]  \right]  $ is $1$. However, we have
already seen that this coefficient is $\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{i,i}$. Thus, we
conclude that $\left(  A^{m}\right)  _{i,i}=1$. This shows that all diagonal
entries of $A^{m}$ equal $1$, so that Theorem \ref{thm.main3} is proved.
\end{proof}

\section{Back to Putnam 2021}

As already mentioned, we do not know whether Theorem \ref{thm.putnam} can be
generalized by replacing \textquotedblleft odd\textquotedblright\ by
\textquotedblleft congruent to $1$ modulo $4$\textquotedblright. More
generally, we are tempted to ask the following:

\begin{question}
\label{quest.putnam-R}Fix a commutative ring $R$. Let $A$ be an $n\times
n$-matrix over $R$. Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Assume that each
principal minor of $A$ is $1$. Is it true that each principal minor of $A^{m}$
is $1$ as well?
\end{question}

For $R=\mathbb{Z}/2$, this would yield Theorem \ref{thm.putnam}; the
\textquotedblleft congruent to $1$ modulo $4$\textquotedblright\ variant would
follow for $R=\mathbb{Z}/4$. Theorem \ref{thm.main3} corresponds to the case
when the principal minor of $A^{m}$ is a diagonal entry. The argument from
\cite[Lemma 3.3]{MasPan} shows that Question \ref{quest.putnam-R} has a
positive answer whenever $R$ is an integral domain; thus, the answer is also
positive when $R$ is a product of integral domains. On the other hand, if $R$
can be arbitrary, then the answer to Question \ref{quest.putnam-R} is
negative, but the only counterexample we know is when $R$ is a certain
quotient ring of a polynomial ring\footnote{Here are the details: Let $R$ be
the quotient rin
\[
\mathbb{Q}\left[  x,y\right]  \diagup\left(  x^{3}+y^{3},xy,x^{4},x^{3
y,x^{2}y^{2},xy^{3},y^{4}\right)  ,
\]
and let $A:=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & y & x\\
x & 0 & 1 & y\\
y & 0 & x & 1
\end{array}
\right)  \in R^{4\times4}$. Then, all principal minors of $A$ are $1$, but the
principal minor $\det\left(  \operatorname*{sub}\nolimits_{\left\{
2,3\right\}  }^{\left\{  2,3\right\}  }\left(  A^{2}\right)  \right)
=1-x^{3}-xy$ is not $1$ since $x^{3}\neq0$ in $R$. Actually, we can replace
$\mathbb{Q}$ by any field here (even by $\mathbb{Z}/2$); then, $R$ becomes a
finite ring. (But we cannot turn $R$ into $\mathbb{Z}/n$ without changing the
construction of $A$.)} (and $n=4$ and $m=2$). The smallest ring $R$ for which
the question remains open is $\mathbb{Z}/4$.


A variant of Cauchy's argument principle for analytic functions which applies to curves containing zeroes

Abstract: It is known that the Cauchy's argument principle, applied to an holomorphic function $f$, requires that $f$ has no zeros on the curve of integration. In this short note, we give a generalization of such a principle which covers the case when $f$ has zeros on the curve, as well as an application.

\section{Introduction, statement of results, and an application}

The argument principle, one of the fundamental results in complex analysis, can be formulated as follows (see \cite{Rudin2001} or \cite{remmert2012theory}).
\begin{thm} \label{classarg}
Suppose that $\gamma$ is a smooth Jordan curve in a domain $U$, and a function $f$ is analytic on $U$ with no zeroes on $\gamma$. Then the number of zeroes of $f$ inside $\gamma$ is equal to

\begin{equation} \label{fprime}
\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_\gamma \frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}dz.
\end{equation}

This is also equal to the winding number of the curve $f(\gamma)$ around $0$.
\end{thm}

The equation (\ref{fprime}) shows the importance of the condition that $f$ not vanish on $\gamma$, since otherwise the integral would diverge, but it is the final statement that we will focus on. We have found the following variant on this statement which holds without the requirement that $f$ be nonzero on $\gamma$.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Let--be} Let $f$ be a non zero holomorphic function defined
on an open domain $U$ and $\gamma$ be a smooth Jordan curve lying
inside $U$. Then for any line $L$ passing through the origin there
exist at least $2m+\lambda$ distinct points on $\gamma$ mapped to $L$ by $f$, where
$m$ is the number of zeros of $f$ inside $\gamma$ and $\lambda$
is the number of zeros of $f$ on $\gamma$, all counted according to
multiplicities.
\end{thm}

We note that Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be} is an immediate consequence of the Theorem \ref{classarg} when there are no zeroes on $\gamma$, since any line will be intersected at least twice by $f(\gamma)$ each time that $f(\gamma)$ winds around $0$. Naturally the difficulty arises when there are zeroes on $\gamma$. A first attempt may be to factor out the zeroes, for instance writing $f(z)=g(z)h(z)$, where $g(z)$ is a polynomial with zeroes only on $\gamma$ and $h$ does not vanish on $\gamma$, and then to try to apply Theorem \ref{classarg} to $h$ and add the zeroes from $g$. However this approach fails, as the intersections of $f(\gamma)$ with $L$ are in general not respected by the factorization, and in any event zeroes of $g$ on $\gamma$ of high order must contribute many intersections of $f(\gamma)$ with $L$.

We will prove Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be} in the next section, but first we discuss the motivation for this result, in particular the application which inspired it. We thank Mohammed Zerrak for bringing this problem to our attention.

{\bf Problem:} Let $a_0, \ldots ,a_n$ be a sequence of real numbers, and for simplicity assume $a_0, a_n \neq 0$ (this requirement can easily be removed if required). Let $P(\theta) = \sum_{j=0}^n a_j \cos(j \theta)$ and $Q(\theta) = \sum_{j=0}^n a_{n-j} \cos(j \theta)$. Let $Z_P$ be the number of $\theta \in [0,2\pi)$ such that $P(\theta) = 0$, and $Z_Q$ defined analogously. Show that $Z_P + Z_Q \geq 2n$.

A quick solution using complex analysis can be provided, as follows. Let $f(z) = \sum_{j=0}^n a_j z^j$. Then $P(\theta) = \Re(f(e^{i\theta}))$, and it may be checked that $Q(\theta) = \Re(g(e^{i\theta}))$, where $g(z) = z^n f(\frac{1}{z})$. If there are no zeroes of $f$ on the unit circle $\{|z|=1\}$, then by Theorem \ref{classarg} the curve $\Re(f(e^{i\theta}))$ will intersect the imaginary axis at least $2m_f$ times, where $m_f$ is the number of zeroes (counting multiplicities) of $f$ inside the unit disk $\{|z|<1\}$, and the analogous statement holds for $g$. We see that $Z_P + Z_Q \geq 2(m_f + m_g)$. However, the number of zeroes of $g$ in $\{|z|<1\}$ is the same as the number of zeroes of $f$ in  $\{|z|>1\}$, and since $f$ has no zeroes on the unit circle we see that $m_f+m_g = n$. The result therefore follows in this case.

The role of Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be} is to extend this solution in the case that $f$ has zeroes on the unit circle. Let $\lambda$ denote the sum of the multiplicities of the zeroes of $f$ on $\{|z|=1\}$, and note that the conjugates of these zeroes must be zeroes of $g$ with the same multiplicities. Applying Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be}, we see that $Z_P+Z_Q = 2m_f + \lambda + 2m_g + \lambda$, and as $m_f + m_g + \lambda = n$ the result follows.

As a final comment before proving Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be}, we point out that the number $2m+\lambda$ is the best possible, as the following examples show. Let $\gamma$ be the unit circle, and let $f(z) = (z+1)^n$. Then, taking $z = e^{i \theta}$, we can check that $(e^{i \theta} + 1)^n = 2^n e^{in\theta/2} \cos^n(\theta/2)$, so the number of intersections that $f(\gamma)$ has with the real axis is the same as the number of zeroes of $\Im(e^{in\theta/2})=\sin(n\theta/2)$ in $[0,2\pi)$, and this is $n$. This shows essentially that the $\lambda$ in the expression $2m + \lambda$ is sharp. The $2m$ is even easier, as we may take $\gamma$ again as the unit circle and $f(z) = z^n$, and $f(e^{i\theta})$ will intersect any line exactly $2n$ times as $\theta$ ranges from $0$ to $2\pi$.

\iffalse
\begin{cor}
If $f$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ then $f(z)$ and $z^{n}f(\frac{1}{z})$
together cross any line $L$through the origin more than $2n$ times
when $z$ ranges over the unit circle.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Set $h(z)=z^{n}f(\frac{1}{z})$ and consider the following numbers
\[
\begin{alignedat}{1}m_{f} & :=\#\{z\in\mathbb{D}\mid f(z)=0\}\\
\lambda & :=\#\{z\in\partial\mathbb{D}\mid f(z)=0\}=\#\{z\in\partial\mathbb{D}\mid g(z)=0\}\\
m_{g} & :=\#\{z\in\mathbb{D}\mid f(z)=0\}
\end{alignedat}
\]
In particular $m_{f}+\lambda+m_{g}=n$. Using (\ref{thm:Let--be}),
the number of crossings for both $f$ and $g$ with $L$ is then bounded below
by
\[
2m_{f}+\lambda+2m_{g}+\lambda=2n.
\]
\end{proof}

\fi

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be}}
\begin{proof}
The number of zeros of $f$ on and inside $\gamma$ is finite as the
latter is a Jordan curve. Let $z_{1},...,z_{k}$ be the roots of $f$
on $\gamma$, where we denote by $\lambda_{j}$ the multiplicity of
each $z_{j}$ and $D_{j}=D_j(\varepsilon)$ be the disc of radius $\varepsilon$
centered at $z_{j}$. The radius $\varepsilon$ is chosen small enough
so $D_{j}$ remains inside $U$ and contains no zeroes of $f$ other than $z_j$. Now consider the Jordan curve $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$
constructed from $\gamma$ by replacing each part $\gamma\cap D_{j}$
by the arc of the circle $\partial D_{j}$ lying outside of $\gamma$; in order to guarantee that $\gamma_\varepsilon$ is itself a Jordan curve we may need to decrease $\varepsilon$ further. The figure illustrates $\gamma_\varepsilon$.

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering{}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,keepaspectratio]{residueextension}\caption{The bold curve is $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$. }
\end{figure}

No zeroes of $f$ lie on $\gamma_\varepsilon$, and there are $m+\lambda$ zeroes of $f$ inside $\gamma_\varepsilon$, so by Theorem \ref{classarg} there are at least $2m+2\lambda$ points on $\gamma_\varepsilon$ which are preimages of points in $L$. The trick is to show that not too many of them can be on the components of $\gamma_\varepsilon$ which lie in the boundary of some $\partial D_{j}$. The intuition behind this is easy: if we shrink $\varepsilon$ sufficiently, then the points on $\partial D_{j}$ which are preimages of points on $L$ should be approximately equidistributed on $\partial D_{j}$, so that about half of them lie inside and half lie outside $\gamma$. Only the ones on the outside of $\gamma$ lie on $\gamma_\varepsilon$, and any other points on $\gamma_\varepsilon$ which are preimages of points in $L$ must lie on $\gamma$ proper. The trick is making this rigorous.

Inside $\overline{D}_{j}$, $f$ is of the form $f(z)=(z-z_{j})^{\lambda_{j}}g_{j}(z)$
where $g_{j}(z_{j})\neq0$. If we let $z=z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i}$
then we have
\[
\arg(f(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i}))=\lambda_{j}\theta+\arg(g_{j}(z)).
\]

We claim that
\begin{equation}
\mid{\textstyle \frac{d\arg(g_{j})}{d\theta}}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})\mid\overset{\varepsilon}{=}o(1).\label{eq:o(eps)}
\end{equation}
Note that this implies from above that

\begin{equation}
\mid{\textstyle \frac{d\arg(f)}{d\theta}}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})\mid\overset{\varepsilon}{=} \lambda_j  + o(1).\label{eq:fo(eps)}
\end{equation}

We shall use the approximation (\ref{eq:fo(eps)}), and will prove (\ref{eq:o(eps)})
later on in a separate lemma. Now, we may shrink $\varepsilon$
if necessary so that $\frac{d\arg(f)}{d\theta}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})$ is positive on all $\partial D_{j}$.
This fact, combined with Theorem \ref{classarg}, yields
that $\partial D_{j}$ contains exactly $2\lambda_{j}$ preimages of
points in $L$, since the argument of the curve may not change direction in order to create extra preimages. In other
words,
\[
\#\{z\in\partial D_{j}\mid f(z)\in L\}=2\lambda_{j}.
\]
Denote by $u_{0}=z_{j}+re^{\theta_{0}i},...,u_{\ell}=z_{j}+re^{\theta_{\ell}i}$
the points of $\gamma_{\varepsilon}\cap\partial D_{j}$ such that
$f(u_{t})\in L$, arranged in anti-clockwise order. Note that $\arg(f(u_{t}))-\arg(f(u_{t-1})) = \pi$ for all $t$, since $f$ is continuous and orientation preserving.  Using
the mean value theorem and (\ref{eq:fo(eps)}) we have
\[
\begin{vmatrix}\frac{\arg(f(u_{t}))-\arg(f(u_{t-1}))}{\theta_{t}-\theta_{t-1}}\end{vmatrix}={\textstyle \frac{\pi}{\theta_{t}-\theta_{t-1}}}\leq\lambda_{j}+o(1),
\]
whence
\[
\ell\leq \sum_{t=1}^\ell {\textstyle \frac{(\theta_{t}-\theta_{t-1})(\lambda_{j}+o(1 ))}{\pi}}=\textstyle \frac{(\lambda_{j}+o(1 ))}{\pi} (\theta_{\ell}-\theta_{0})\leq{\textstyle \frac{\lambda_{j}+\varepsilon\delta_{j}}{\pi}}(\pi+\eta_{\varepsilon}),
\]
where $\pi + \eta_{\varepsilon}$ denotes the angular length of the circular arc $\partial D_{j} \cap\gamma_\varepsilon$. Note that the smoothness of $\gamma$ implies that $\eta_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=6cm,height=6cm,keepaspectratio]{res1.png}\caption{The dotted line is the tangent of $\gamma$ at $z_{j}$.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}

Thus, by again shrinking $\varepsilon$ if necessary, we obtain
\[
\ell\leq\lambda_{j}.
\]

There are $\ell+1$ points on $\partial D_{j} \cap\gamma_\varepsilon$ which are preimages of points in $L$, and applying this around every $z_j$ and combining these estimates yields at least

$$
2m+2\lambda - \sum_{j=1}^k (\lambda_j+1)
$$

points on $\gamma \cap \gamma_\varepsilon$ which are preimages of points in $L$. Recalling that $\lambda = \sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j$ gives at least

$$
2m+ \sum_{j=1}^k (\lambda_j-1)
$$

points on $\gamma \cap \gamma_\varepsilon$ which are preimages of points in $L$. Finally, the points $z_1, \ldots, z_k$ are all mapped to $L$ by $f$, since $L$ passes through the origin, and taking these into account completes the proof of the theorem.

\iffalse
there must Consequently, inside the curve $\gamma$, at least $\lambda_{j}-1$
points of $\partial D_{j}$ and are mapped to $L$. Summarizing all
contributions made by the $z_{j}$'s, the total number of points on
and inside $\gamma$ is bounded below by
\[
\underset{\overset{\uparrow}{\mathrm{CAP}\,\mathrm{inside}\,\gamma}}{2m}+\sum_{j=1}^{k}(\lambda_{j}-1+\underset{\overset{\uparrow}{z_{j}}}{1})=2m+\sum_{j=1}^{k}\lambda_{j}=2m+\lambda
\]
\fi
\end{proof}

It remains only to prove the lemma used earlier on the derivative of the argument of $g$.

\begin{lem}
We have
\[
\mid{\textstyle \frac{d\arg(g_{j})}{d\theta}}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})\mid\overset{\varepsilon}{=}o(1).
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The Taylor expansion of $g_{j}(z=z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})$
at $z_{j}$ is given by
\[
g_{j}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})=g_{j}(z_{j})+\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}{\textstyle \frac{g_{j}^{(r)}(z_{j})}{r!}}\varepsilon^{r}e^{r\theta i}=g_{j}(z_{j})+\varepsilon\varphi_{j}(\theta).
\]
Notice that the function $\varphi_{j}$ is differentiable (with respect
to $\theta$) with bounded derivative. Set $g_{j}(z_{j})=a+bi$ and
$\varphi_{j}(\theta)=\varepsilon\alpha(\theta)+\varepsilon\beta(\theta)i$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $a,b>0$ and hence for
small $\varepsilon$ we get $a+\varepsilon\alpha(\theta),b+\varepsilon\beta(\theta)>0$.
In particular, we can express $g_{j}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})$
as
\[
g_{j}(z_{j}+\varepsilon e^{\theta i})=\arctan({\textstyle \frac{b+\beta(\theta)}{a+\alpha(\theta)}}).
\]
Therefore
\[
\begin{alignedat}{1}{\textstyle \frac{d\arg(g_{j})}{d\theta}}(z) & ={\textstyle \frac{\varepsilon\beta'(\theta)(a+\varepsilon\alpha(\theta))-\varepsilon\alpha'(\theta)(b+\varepsilon\beta(\theta))}{(a+\varepsilon\alpha(\theta))^{2}}\times\frac{1}{1+({\textstyle \frac{b+\varepsilon\beta(\theta)}{a+\varepsilon\alpha(\theta)}})^{2}}}\\
 & =\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)\\
 & =o(1).
\end{alignedat}
\]
\end{proof}

\section{Concluding remarks}

The condition that $\gamma$ be smooth can be weakened to piecewise smooth if required. In that case we can associate an interior angle $\beta_j$ and an interior angle $\alpha_j$ to each of the zeroes $z_j$; see the figure below. The same reasoning applies, except that an upper bound on the number of preimages of points on $L$ on each $\partial D_{j}$ is given by $\lfloor  \frac{\beta}{\pi}\lambda_j \rfloor +1$ where $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ is the floor function. A bit of algebra yields the following generalization of Theorem \ref{thm:Let--be}.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Let--be2} Let $f$ be a non zero holomorphic function defined
on an open domain $U$ and $\gamma$ be a piecewise smooth Jordan curve lying
inside $U$. Suppose the zeroes of $f$ lying on $\gamma$ are $z_1, \dots, z_k$. Let $\lambda_j$ be the multiplicity of the zero at $z_j$, and let $\alpha_j$ be the interior angle of $\gamma$ at $z_j$. Then for any line $L$ passing through the origin there exist at least

$$
2m+\sum_{j=1}^k \lceil \lambda_j \textstyle \frac{\alpha_j}{\pi} \rceil
$$

distinct points on $\gamma$ mapped to $L$ by $f$, where
$m$ is the number of zeros of $f$ inside $\gamma$ counted according to
multiplicities and $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ denotes the ceiling function.
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}[H] \label{alpha}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=6cm,height=6cm,keepaspectratio]{internal_residue}\caption{The angle $\alpha_j$ at $z_{j}$.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}

\iffalse
The smoothness of $\gamma$ can be restricted only at around the points
$z_{1},...,z_{k}$. Using the same proof of our theorem, we can show
that an upper bound of the number of crossing is $2m+\lambda+2k$.
\fi

\bibliographystyle{plain}