Permanent and determinant

AbstractThe n×n permanent is not a projection of the m×m determinant if m ⩽ √2n− 6√n

Almost Settling the Hardness of Noncommutative Determinant

In this paper, we study the complexity of computing the determinant of a matrix over a non-commutative algebra. In particular, we ask the question, "over which algebras, is the determinant easier to compute than the permanent?" Towards resolving this question, we show the following hardness and easiness of noncommutative determinant computation. * [Hardness] Computing the determinant of an n \times n matrix whose entries are themselves 2 \times 2 matrices over a field is as hard as computing the permanent over the field. This extends the recent result of Arvind and Srinivasan, who proved a similar result which however required the entries to be of linear dimension. * [Easiness] Determinant of an n \times n matrix whose entries are themselves d \times d upper triangular matrices can be computed in poly(n^d) time. Combining the above with the decomposition theorem of finite dimensional algebras (in particular exploiting the simple structure of 2 \times 2 matrix algebras), we can extend the above hardness and easiness statements to more general algebras as follows. Let A be a finite dimensional algebra over a finite field with radical R(A). * [Hardness] If the quotient A/R(A) is non-commutative, then computing the determinant over the algebra A is as hard as computing the permanent. * [Easiness] If the quotient A/R(A) is commutative and furthermore, R(A) has nilpotency index d (i.e., the smallest d such that R(A)d = 0), then there exists a poly(n^d)-time algorithm that computes determinants over the algebra A. In particular, for any constant dimensional algebra A over a finite field, since the nilpotency index of R(A) is at most a constant, we have the following dichotomy theorem: if A/R(A) is commutative, then efficient determinant computation is feasible and otherwise determinant is as hard as permanent.Comment: 20 pages, 3 figure

Symmetries of plane partitions and the permanent-determinant method

In the paper [J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 43 (1986), 103--113], Stanley gives formulas for the number of plane partitions in each of ten symmetry classes. This paper together with results by Andrews [J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 66 (1994), 28-39] and Stembridge [Adv. Math 111 (1995), 227-243] completes the project of proving all ten formulas. We enumerate cyclically symmetric, self-complementary plane partitions. We first convert plane partitions to tilings of a hexagon in the plane by rhombuses, or equivalently to matchings in a certain planar graph. We can then use the permanent-determinant method or a variant, the Hafnian-Pfaffian method, to obtain the answer as the determinant or Pfaffian of a matrix in each of the ten cases. We row-reduce the resulting matrix in the case under consideration to prove the formula. A similar row-reduction process can be carried out in many of the other cases, and we analyze three other symmetry classes of plane partitions for comparison

No occurrence obstructions in geometric complexity theory

The permanent versus determinant conjecture is a major problem in complexity theory that is equivalent to the separation of the complexity classes VP_{ws} and VNP. Mulmuley and Sohoni (SIAM J. Comput., 2001) suggested to study a strengthened version of this conjecture over the complex numbers that amounts to separating the orbit closures of the determinant and padded permanent polynomials. In that paper it was also proposed to separate these orbit closures by exhibiting occurrence obstructions, which are irreducible representations of GL_{n^2}(C), which occur in one coordinate ring of the orbit closure, but not in the other. We prove that this approach is impossible. However, we do not rule out the general approach to the permanent versus determinant problem via multiplicity obstructions as proposed by Mulmuley and Sohoni.Comment: Substantial revision. This version contains an overview of the proof of the main result. Added material on the model of power sums. Theorem 4.14 in the old version, which had a complicated proof, became the easy Theorem 5.4. To appear in the Journal of the AM