Binominial theorem proof without induction

In summary, the conversation discusses whether the binomial theorem can be proven without the use of induction. It is suggested that using Taylor's expansion theorem can lead to a proof without induction. However, it is pointed out that the proof still relies on the generalized product rule, which must be proven using induction. Therefore, it is concluded that the binomial theorem cannot be proven without any use of induction.
  • #1
Werg22
1,431
1
I was wondering, is there any way to prove the bominial theorem without the use of induction? Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
My official answer: kinda.

If you use Taylor's expansion theorem on [itex](x+a)^m[/itex], you'll find that [tex]f^{(n)}(0)/n![/tex] vanishes for n greater than m. But to prove that, you'll need induction even though it is super evident.
 
  • #3
sum(C(n,k)*x^k * y^(n-k), k = 0, 1, ..., n) = (x + y)^n

You can give a combinatorial proof.

Pf.
Consider the n factors of the expansion
(x + y)^n = (x+y)(x+y) * * * (x + y)

Now in this expansion, the coefficient of x^ky^(n-k) is the number of different ways we can select k x's from the n available factors. The total number of such selections of size k from a collection of size n is C(n, k), and we're done.
 
  • #4
i will guess not, unless the versiom of the statement being proved is so weak as not to have any explicit content.
 
  • #5
ircdan said:
sum(C(n,k)*x^k * y^(n-k), k = 0, 1, ..., n) = (x + y)^n
Pascal's triangle. The proof that this is true for all n requires induction. :frown:
 
  • #6
ircdan said:
sum(C(n,k)*x^k * y^(n-k), k = 0, 1, ..., n) = (x + y)^n

You can give a combinatorial proof.

Pf.
Consider the n factors of the expansion
(x + y)^n = (x+y)(x+y) * * * (x + y)

Now in this expansion, the coefficient of x^ky^(n-k) is the number of different ways we can select k x's from the n available factors. The total number of such selections of size k from a collection of size n is C(n, k), and we're done.

Could you please explain "Now in this expansion, the coefficient of x^ky^(n-k) is the number of different ways we can select k x's from the n available factors."? How do you come to this conclusion without knowledge of the binominial theorem?
 
  • #7
Werg22 said:
Could you please explain "Now in this expansion, the coefficient of x^ky^(n-k) is the number of different ways we can select k x's from the n available factors."? How do you come to this conclusion without knowledge of the binominial theorem?
Ok apparently my proof was way too vague. Here is an example to help explain what's going on. For notation below, when i say xx i mean x*x = x^2, so I'm multiplying.

Ok here is an example. Consider the expansion

(x + y)^3 = (x + y)(x + y)(x + y)
= xxx + xxy + xyx + xyy + yxx + yxy + yyx + yyy (1)

and collecting like terms this is x^3 + 3x^2y + 3xy^2 + y^3, call this (2).

Ok now the products in the expansion of (x + y)^3 are formed by forming all products of a term in the first factor, x or y, times a term in the second factor and times a term in the third factor. There are two choices for each term, so there are 2^3 = 8 such products.

Ok, now how many products in (1) contain k x's and 3 - k y's? This is the same as asking for the coefficient of x^(3 -k)y^k in (2). Note we formed all possible products of x's and y's, and note these are just three letter sequences of x's and y's, so we are really asking for the number of 3 letter sequences with k x's and 3-k y's, which is just C(3,k). (Note you only have to choose k x's, asking for 3-k y's isn't needed, but i mentioned it to help clarify)

For the binomial theorem,
sum(C(n,k)*x^k * y^(n-k), k = 0, 1, ..., n) = (x + y)^n

we do the same thing, except our product is

(x + y)^n = (x + y)(x + y) *** (x + y) "n times"

We have n factors in this expansion. Using the same argument as above we get C(n, k) as the coefficient of the x^(n-k)y^k term.



Another way to do it. Consider (x + y)^n = (x + y)(x + y)***(x + y). Now think of each factor as a position in a bitstring of length n, put a 1 in the position if you choose an x from that factor, put a 0 if you choose a y. Then the coefficient of x^ky^(n-k) = the number of bitstrings of length n with k 1's = C(n, k) once again.
 
  • #8
quasar987 said:
Pascal's triangle. The proof that this is true for all n requires induction. :frown:
Ohhhhh I think I see what you mean.

To prove C(n,k) is the number of r-combinations of a set of n elements you need to use the fact that P(n,r) is the number of r-permutations of a set with n elements.

To prove P(n,r) is the number of r-permutations of a set with n elements you need to use the generalized product rule.

But the catch is, to prove the generalized form of the product rule, you need to use induction:frown: So even though I technically didn't use induction, it seems C(n,k) relies on a result that must be proved by induction. Unless there is another way to prove the product rule without induction? I don't know if there is, if so, then everything works without any use of induction right?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
ircdan said:
Ohhhhh I think I see what you mean.

To prove C(n,k) is the number of r-combinations of a set of n elements you need to use the fact that P(n,r) is the number of r-permutations of a set with n elements.

To prove P(n,r) is the number of r-permutations of a set with n elements you need to use the generalized product rule.

But the catch is, to prove the generalized form of the product rule, you need to use induction:frown: So even though I technically didn't use induction, it seems C(n,k) relies on a result that must be proved by induction. Unless there is another way to prove the product rule without induction? I don't know if there is, if so, then everything my proof works and it works without any use of induction right?

PS: I haven't read your in depth explanation yet, I'm on to it.

Well if what you are saying is how to prove C(n,k) is n!/k!(n-k)!, this is simple probabilty. Say you have a selection n different numbers to form a k digits number. For the first the digit you have a choice of n number, the second digit a choice of n-1 and so on. This leads to the conclusion that there is n(n-1)...(n-k+1) possibilities. However, since some of these possibilites have the same numbers but with different positions. We consider a group of possibilities with number of this type. In that group, we have k digits and k numbers to chose from. Hence, this group countains exactly k! numbers. We now know that exactly n(n-1)...(n-k+1) /k! combinations are possible, taking account of reoccurance of the same digits. n(n-1)...(n-k+1)/k! can be written n!/k!(n-k)!.
 
  • #10
Werg22 said:
For the first the digit you have a choice of n number, the second digit a choice of n-1 and so on. This leads to the conclusion that there is n(n-1)...(n-k+1) possibilities.
You need to use induction to prove that result, it's called the product rule. We use it all the time, but the proof is by induction(at least the one I've seen). I don't know if there is another way to prove it. I think that's why quasar987 was saying, I'm not sure though hehe:smile:
 
  • #11
By the way, thanks for your explanation, that is an elegant proof.
 
  • #12
Werg22 said:
By the way, thanks for your explanation, that is an elegant proof.
You bet:smile:

PS: And I'm still really new to combinatorics, so hopefully no horrible errors in that proof hehe.
 
  • #13
One of our assignements in discrete scructures was to find a 'combinatorial' (or 'counting') proof to this very problem. The solution already given is the one I found.
 

1. What is the binomial theorem?

The binomial theorem is a mathematical theorem that provides a formula for expanding the power of a binomial expression. It states that (a + b)^n = Σ(n, k)a^(n-k)b^k, where n is a positive integer, a and b are real numbers, and Σ(n, k) represents the summation of the terms from k=0 to k=n in the expression.

2. Why is induction not used in the proof of the binomial theorem?

Induction is a proof technique that relies on the assumption that a statement is true for a base case and then proves that it is also true for the next case. However, in the proof of the binomial theorem, we use the properties of the binomial coefficients and the properties of the Pascal's triangle to derive the formula, rather than relying on induction.

3. What are the main steps in the proof of the binomial theorem without induction?

The main steps in the proof of the binomial theorem without induction include expanding the power of a binomial expression using the properties of the binomial coefficients and the Pascal's triangle, simplifying the resulting expression, and then generalizing the result for any positive integer n. This is done by using the properties of the binomial coefficients and the binomial theorem for smaller values of n to derive the formula for any value of n.

4. Can you provide an example of the binomial theorem without using induction?

Yes, for example, to expand (a + b)^3, we can use the properties of the binomial coefficients and the Pascal's triangle to get (a + b)^3 = a^3 + 3a^2b + 3ab^2 + b^3. We can then simplify this expression to (a + b)^3 = a^3 + 3a^2b + 3ab^2 + b^3 = (a + b)(a^2 + 2ab + b^2). This is an example of the binomial theorem without using induction.

5. Are there any limitations to the binomial theorem proof without induction?

The binomial theorem proof without induction is a valid and widely accepted method of proving the formula. However, it may not be suitable for more complex or abstract cases where the properties of the binomial coefficients and the Pascal's triangle may not be applicable. In such cases, other proof techniques may need to be employed.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
305
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
438
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top