Let $ R $ be a p.i.d. and $ Ain M_n(R) $. If $ det(A)=1 $, prove or disprove that $ A $ can be expressed as...












3












$begingroup$



Let $ R $ be a p.i.d. and $ Ain M_n(R) $. If $ det(A)=1 $, prove or disprove that $ A $ can be expressed as products of elementary matrices.




I know that we can express $ A $ as products of elementary matrices when we require $ R $ to be Euclidean. Since we can get rid of matrices whose left uppermost elements are like $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} .$$



(Note: Furthermore, I know that if we require $ R $ to be a field, and $ det(A)=1 $, we can even express $ A $ as products of transvection matrices. Transvection matrices generate SLn(R))




Now back to this question, it seems to me that it suffices to prove that invertible matrices of type: $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} $$ where $ ax+by=d $, $ gcd(a, b)=d $ and $ s=bd^{-1}, t=-ad^{-1} $(Here the inverse is obtained by cancellation in $ R $) can be expressed into products of elementary matrices. Since $ det(A)=1 $, then $ d=1 $ and we have: $ gcd(a, b)=1, s=b, t=-a $. Well how to move on?




EDIT: I have changed my title and statement in a less misleading way since I find out that we can't express $ A $ in such a way under the given assumption generally.






abstract-algebra matrices principal-ideal-domains







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You're looking for Smith Normal Form
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 15:35






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @jgon Nope. We can't express a matrix over p.i.d. into products of elementary matrices in general. This might be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/q/99236/549397
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 23 at 15:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh I see, interesting, I'd forgotten about that. So you're trying to prove that the 2x2 matrices that arise are products of elementary matrices in this case?
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The counterexample in the P. M. Cohn article cited by @joriki in the linked thread is a $2times 2$-matrix of determinant $1$. So I don't think that condition will save you.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 24 at 18:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm getting $(3-θ)(5-2θ)-(2+θ)(-3-2θ)=-4θ+4θ^2+21=4underbrace{(θ^2-θ+5)}_{=0}+1=1$ instead.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 25 at 2:28


















3












$begingroup$



Let $ R $ be a p.i.d. and $ Ain M_n(R) $. If $ det(A)=1 $, prove or disprove that $ A $ can be expressed as products of elementary matrices.




I know that we can express $ A $ as products of elementary matrices when we require $ R $ to be Euclidean. Since we can get rid of matrices whose left uppermost elements are like $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} .$$



(Note: Furthermore, I know that if we require $ R $ to be a field, and $ det(A)=1 $, we can even express $ A $ as products of transvection matrices. Transvection matrices generate SLn(R))




Now back to this question, it seems to me that it suffices to prove that invertible matrices of type: $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} $$ where $ ax+by=d $, $ gcd(a, b)=d $ and $ s=bd^{-1}, t=-ad^{-1} $(Here the inverse is obtained by cancellation in $ R $) can be expressed into products of elementary matrices. Since $ det(A)=1 $, then $ d=1 $ and we have: $ gcd(a, b)=1, s=b, t=-a $. Well how to move on?




EDIT: I have changed my title and statement in a less misleading way since I find out that we can't express $ A $ in such a way under the given assumption generally.






abstract-algebra matrices principal-ideal-domains







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You're looking for Smith Normal Form
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 15:35






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @jgon Nope. We can't express a matrix over p.i.d. into products of elementary matrices in general. This might be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/q/99236/549397
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 23 at 15:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh I see, interesting, I'd forgotten about that. So you're trying to prove that the 2x2 matrices that arise are products of elementary matrices in this case?
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The counterexample in the P. M. Cohn article cited by @joriki in the linked thread is a $2times 2$-matrix of determinant $1$. So I don't think that condition will save you.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 24 at 18:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm getting $(3-θ)(5-2θ)-(2+θ)(-3-2θ)=-4θ+4θ^2+21=4underbrace{(θ^2-θ+5)}_{=0}+1=1$ instead.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 25 at 2:28
















3












3








3


1



$begingroup$



Let $ R $ be a p.i.d. and $ Ain M_n(R) $. If $ det(A)=1 $, prove or disprove that $ A $ can be expressed as products of elementary matrices.




I know that we can express $ A $ as products of elementary matrices when we require $ R $ to be Euclidean. Since we can get rid of matrices whose left uppermost elements are like $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} .$$



(Note: Furthermore, I know that if we require $ R $ to be a field, and $ det(A)=1 $, we can even express $ A $ as products of transvection matrices. Transvection matrices generate SLn(R))




Now back to this question, it seems to me that it suffices to prove that invertible matrices of type: $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} $$ where $ ax+by=d $, $ gcd(a, b)=d $ and $ s=bd^{-1}, t=-ad^{-1} $(Here the inverse is obtained by cancellation in $ R $) can be expressed into products of elementary matrices. Since $ det(A)=1 $, then $ d=1 $ and we have: $ gcd(a, b)=1, s=b, t=-a $. Well how to move on?




EDIT: I have changed my title and statement in a less misleading way since I find out that we can't express $ A $ in such a way under the given assumption generally.






abstract-algebra matrices principal-ideal-domains







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Let $ R $ be a p.i.d. and $ Ain M_n(R) $. If $ det(A)=1 $, prove or disprove that $ A $ can be expressed as products of elementary matrices.




I know that we can express $ A $ as products of elementary matrices when we require $ R $ to be Euclidean. Since we can get rid of matrices whose left uppermost elements are like $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} .$$



(Note: Furthermore, I know that if we require $ R $ to be a field, and $ det(A)=1 $, we can even express $ A $ as products of transvection matrices. Transvection matrices generate SLn(R))




Now back to this question, it seems to me that it suffices to prove that invertible matrices of type: $$ begin{pmatrix}x & s\ y & tend{pmatrix} $$ where $ ax+by=d $, $ gcd(a, b)=d $ and $ s=bd^{-1}, t=-ad^{-1} $(Here the inverse is obtained by cancellation in $ R $) can be expressed into products of elementary matrices. Since $ det(A)=1 $, then $ d=1 $ and we have: $ gcd(a, b)=1, s=b, t=-a $. Well how to move on?




EDIT: I have changed my title and statement in a less misleading way since I find out that we can't express $ A $ in such a way under the given assumption generally.






abstract-algebra matrices principal-ideal-domains




abstract-algebra matrices principal-ideal-domains






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 25 at 5:20







user549397

















asked Jan 23 at 13:12









user549397user549397

1,5061418




1,5061418












  • $begingroup$
    You're looking for Smith Normal Form
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 15:35






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @jgon Nope. We can't express a matrix over p.i.d. into products of elementary matrices in general. This might be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/q/99236/549397
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 23 at 15:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh I see, interesting, I'd forgotten about that. So you're trying to prove that the 2x2 matrices that arise are products of elementary matrices in this case?
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The counterexample in the P. M. Cohn article cited by @joriki in the linked thread is a $2times 2$-matrix of determinant $1$. So I don't think that condition will save you.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 24 at 18:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm getting $(3-θ)(5-2θ)-(2+θ)(-3-2θ)=-4θ+4θ^2+21=4underbrace{(θ^2-θ+5)}_{=0}+1=1$ instead.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 25 at 2:28




















  • $begingroup$
    You're looking for Smith Normal Form
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 15:35






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @jgon Nope. We can't express a matrix over p.i.d. into products of elementary matrices in general. This might be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/q/99236/549397
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 23 at 15:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh I see, interesting, I'd forgotten about that. So you're trying to prove that the 2x2 matrices that arise are products of elementary matrices in this case?
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Jan 23 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The counterexample in the P. M. Cohn article cited by @joriki in the linked thread is a $2times 2$-matrix of determinant $1$. So I don't think that condition will save you.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 24 at 18:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm getting $(3-θ)(5-2θ)-(2+θ)(-3-2θ)=-4θ+4θ^2+21=4underbrace{(θ^2-θ+5)}_{=0}+1=1$ instead.
    $endgroup$
    – darij grinberg
    Jan 25 at 2:28


















$begingroup$
You're looking for Smith Normal Form
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 23 at 15:35




$begingroup$
You're looking for Smith Normal Form
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 23 at 15:35




2




2




$begingroup$
@jgon Nope. We can't express a matrix over p.i.d. into products of elementary matrices in general. This might be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/q/99236/549397
$endgroup$
– user549397
Jan 23 at 15:53




$begingroup$
@jgon Nope. We can't express a matrix over p.i.d. into products of elementary matrices in general. This might be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/q/99236/549397
$endgroup$
– user549397
Jan 23 at 15:53












$begingroup$
Oh I see, interesting, I'd forgotten about that. So you're trying to prove that the 2x2 matrices that arise are products of elementary matrices in this case?
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 23 at 16:22




$begingroup$
Oh I see, interesting, I'd forgotten about that. So you're trying to prove that the 2x2 matrices that arise are products of elementary matrices in this case?
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 23 at 16:22




1




1




$begingroup$
The counterexample in the P. M. Cohn article cited by @joriki in the linked thread is a $2times 2$-matrix of determinant $1$. So I don't think that condition will save you.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 24 at 18:26




$begingroup$
The counterexample in the P. M. Cohn article cited by @joriki in the linked thread is a $2times 2$-matrix of determinant $1$. So I don't think that condition will save you.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 24 at 18:26




1




1




$begingroup$
I'm getting $(3-θ)(5-2θ)-(2+θ)(-3-2θ)=-4θ+4θ^2+21=4underbrace{(θ^2-θ+5)}_{=0}+1=1$ instead.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 25 at 2:28






$begingroup$
I'm getting $(3-θ)(5-2θ)-(2+θ)(-3-2θ)=-4θ+4θ^2+21=4underbrace{(θ^2-θ+5)}_{=0}+1=1$ instead.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 25 at 2:28












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

As pointed out by @darijgrinberg in the comment, we have already had a counterexample in the cited article. (p23):



Consider the ring of integers in $ mathbb Q(sqrt{-19}) $: $ I=mathbb Zleft[frac{1+sqrt{-19}}{2}right] $ which is also a p.i.d. (Ref: An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean), then according to Theorem (6.1) in the article, we know that $ I $ is not a $ GE_2 $-ring.




Definition of $ mathbf{GE_n} $: Every invertible $ ntimes n $ matrix is a product of elementary $
ntimes n $ matrices.




Furthermore, on the top of page23, the author gives an explicit matrix in $ GL_2(I) $ but not in $ GE_2(I) $:
$$ begin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix} $$ where $ theta^2-theta+5=0 $. By direct computation, we know that $$ detbegin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix}=1 .$$ So generally we cannot express a matrix with determinant $ 1 $ in $ M_n(R) $ as products of elementary matrices.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 25 at 5:24











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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3084456%2flet-r-be-a-p-i-d-and-a-in-m-nr-if-deta-1-prove-or-disprove-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

As pointed out by @darijgrinberg in the comment, we have already had a counterexample in the cited article. (p23):



Consider the ring of integers in $ mathbb Q(sqrt{-19}) $: $ I=mathbb Zleft[frac{1+sqrt{-19}}{2}right] $ which is also a p.i.d. (Ref: An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean), then according to Theorem (6.1) in the article, we know that $ I $ is not a $ GE_2 $-ring.




Definition of $ mathbf{GE_n} $: Every invertible $ ntimes n $ matrix is a product of elementary $
ntimes n $ matrices.




Furthermore, on the top of page23, the author gives an explicit matrix in $ GL_2(I) $ but not in $ GE_2(I) $:
$$ begin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix} $$ where $ theta^2-theta+5=0 $. By direct computation, we know that $$ detbegin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix}=1 .$$ So generally we cannot express a matrix with determinant $ 1 $ in $ M_n(R) $ as products of elementary matrices.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 25 at 5:24
















1












$begingroup$

As pointed out by @darijgrinberg in the comment, we have already had a counterexample in the cited article. (p23):



Consider the ring of integers in $ mathbb Q(sqrt{-19}) $: $ I=mathbb Zleft[frac{1+sqrt{-19}}{2}right] $ which is also a p.i.d. (Ref: An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean), then according to Theorem (6.1) in the article, we know that $ I $ is not a $ GE_2 $-ring.




Definition of $ mathbf{GE_n} $: Every invertible $ ntimes n $ matrix is a product of elementary $
ntimes n $ matrices.




Furthermore, on the top of page23, the author gives an explicit matrix in $ GL_2(I) $ but not in $ GE_2(I) $:
$$ begin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix} $$ where $ theta^2-theta+5=0 $. By direct computation, we know that $$ detbegin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix}=1 .$$ So generally we cannot express a matrix with determinant $ 1 $ in $ M_n(R) $ as products of elementary matrices.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 25 at 5:24














1












1








1





$begingroup$

As pointed out by @darijgrinberg in the comment, we have already had a counterexample in the cited article. (p23):



Consider the ring of integers in $ mathbb Q(sqrt{-19}) $: $ I=mathbb Zleft[frac{1+sqrt{-19}}{2}right] $ which is also a p.i.d. (Ref: An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean), then according to Theorem (6.1) in the article, we know that $ I $ is not a $ GE_2 $-ring.




Definition of $ mathbf{GE_n} $: Every invertible $ ntimes n $ matrix is a product of elementary $
ntimes n $ matrices.




Furthermore, on the top of page23, the author gives an explicit matrix in $ GL_2(I) $ but not in $ GE_2(I) $:
$$ begin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix} $$ where $ theta^2-theta+5=0 $. By direct computation, we know that $$ detbegin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix}=1 .$$ So generally we cannot express a matrix with determinant $ 1 $ in $ M_n(R) $ as products of elementary matrices.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



As pointed out by @darijgrinberg in the comment, we have already had a counterexample in the cited article. (p23):



Consider the ring of integers in $ mathbb Q(sqrt{-19}) $: $ I=mathbb Zleft[frac{1+sqrt{-19}}{2}right] $ which is also a p.i.d. (Ref: An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean), then according to Theorem (6.1) in the article, we know that $ I $ is not a $ GE_2 $-ring.




Definition of $ mathbf{GE_n} $: Every invertible $ ntimes n $ matrix is a product of elementary $
ntimes n $ matrices.




Furthermore, on the top of page23, the author gives an explicit matrix in $ GL_2(I) $ but not in $ GE_2(I) $:
$$ begin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix} $$ where $ theta^2-theta+5=0 $. By direct computation, we know that $$ detbegin{pmatrix} 3-theta& 2+theta\ -3-2theta& 5-2theta end{pmatrix}=1 .$$ So generally we cannot express a matrix with determinant $ 1 $ in $ M_n(R) $ as products of elementary matrices.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 25 at 5:16









user549397user549397

1,5061418




1,5061418












  • $begingroup$
    The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 25 at 5:24


















  • $begingroup$
    The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
    $endgroup$
    – user549397
    Jan 25 at 5:24
















$begingroup$
The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
$endgroup$
– user549397
Jan 25 at 5:24




$begingroup$
The reference(cf. [9], p213) given by Cohn on page 23 for the case $ d=19 $ doesn't prove that $ I $ is a p.i.d.. So I have found a new one and attached it to my post(An example of a PID which is not a Euclidean).
$endgroup$
– user549397
Jan 25 at 5:24


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3084456%2flet-r-be-a-p-i-d-and-a-in-m-nr-if-deta-1-prove-or-disprove-t%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

Mario Kart Wii

Image
Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
Read more

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Image
5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
Read more

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

Image
Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
Read more