I came across the following Question
Assume an $n\times n$ matrix that has exactly one $1$ and one $-1$ in each row and column and others are $0$. Prove that there is a way that we can change the places of rows and columns in which it gives the negative of the matrix.
MY TRY- Call such matrix A. All we need to do is to find some permutation matrices $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ such that $$P_{1}AP_{2} = -A$$ $A$ can be written as a difference of two permutation matrices i.e. $$A = P-Q$$ where P and Q are some permutation matrices
Example of one such matrix of order $3\times3$ $$ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & -1 \\ -1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}-\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$
We could first turn every such matrix $A$ by multiplying
by appropriate permutation matrices to the form $I-R$ :-$$P^{T}A = P^{T}(P-Q) = I-R$$ Clearly the permutation matrix R shouldn't have $1$ at the same position as in $I$. R lies in the class of traceless permutation matrices. Now If we are able to find matrices permutation $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ such that $$P_{1}(I-R)P_{2} = (R-I) = -(I-R)$$ we'll have
$$P_{1}P^{T}AP_{2} = -P^{T}A \implies PP_{1}P^{T}AP_{2} = -A $$
and we would be done.
But how could I proceed now to find $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$?
Would we need some extra equation from the fact that $R$ is a traceless permutation matrix?
It was great to see other approaches to solve the problem by Michael Hoppe and user1551.
But I am curious to see how would it be if we go this way?
As said in the question, it is enough to work with $A=I-R$, where $R$ is a permutation matrix without 1 on the diagonal. Suppose that $R$ is the matrix of the permutation $p$. We will show later that every permutation is a product of two involutions, that is, we can write $p=fg$ where $f^2=g^2=id$. (Here a product $fg$ maps $i$ to $f(g(i))$ for all $i$). If $F,G$ are the matrices corresponding to $f,g$, then we have $R=FG$ and $F^2=G^2=I$. Then the statement follows from the fact that $$F(I-R)G=FG-F^2G^2=R-I=-(I-R).$$ It remains to show that every permutation $p$ is the product of two involutions. We can write $p=c_1c_2...c_k$ as a product of disjoint cycles $c_j$ (see here). Therefore it is sufficient to write cycles as a product of two involutions. Furthermore it is sufficient to do this for the cycle corresponding to the mapping $c:i\mapsto i+1 \mod m$. Here we can write it as a product $c=fg$ where $f:i\mapsto m+1-i\mod m$ and $g:i\to m-i \mod m$. More explicitly, a cycle $c=(a_1\,a_2\,\dots\,a_m)$ is the product $c=fg$ of the involutions $$f=\begin{pmatrix}a_1&a_2&\dots &a_m\\a_m&a_{m-1}&\dots &a_1\end{pmatrix} \mbox{ and }g=\begin{pmatrix}a_1&a_2&\dots&a_{m-1} &a_m\\a_{m-1}&a_{m-2}&\dots &a_1&a_m\end{pmatrix}.$$ The factorisations of different cycles in the product $f=c_1c_2\dots c_k$ do not interfere with each other as they concern different sets.
This completes the proof.