Prime factorization proof

In summary: Assume ##\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}## is not an integer.Then, 1 < p < k < (p-1) and p does not divide ##\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}##.But the unique prime factorization theorem states that every integer greater than 1 can be written as a product of one or more primes and that this factorization is unique up to ordering.So p divides ##\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}##, which means p is a factor of ##\binom{p}{k}##.Therefore, p | ##\binom{p}{k}
  • #1
fishturtle1
394
82

Homework Statement


The book wants me to use direct proof.

if p is a prime and k is an integer for which 0 < k < p, then p divides ##\left( \frac p k \right)##

Homework Equations


##\left( \frac p k \right) = \frac {p!} {k!(p-k)!}##

The Attempt at a Solution


the fraction line in ##\left( \frac p k \right)## isn't supposed to be there, but i didn't know how to remove it..its supposed to be p choose k.
proof. Suppose p is prime and k ##\epsilon## Z such that 0 < k < p.

##p! = \left( \frac p k \right)k!(p-k)!##
##p!## has a factor of p.
##k!## has no factor of p because p > k.
##(p-k)!## has no factor of p because p > (p-k).

So ##\left( \frac p k \right)k!(p-k)! = p\frac {(p-1)!} {k!(p-k)!} k!(p-k)!##
and ##p## must be a factor of ##\left( \frac p k \right)## since ##p## is not a factor of ##k!## nor ##(p-k)!## but how do you show that ##\frac {(p-1)!} {k!(p-k)!}## is an integer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
fishturtle1 said:

Homework Statement


The book wants me to use direct proof.

if p is a prime and k is an integer for which 0 < k < p, then p divides ##\left( \frac p k \right)##

Homework Equations


##\left( \frac p k \right) = \frac {p!} {k!(p-k)!}##

The Attempt at a Solution


the fraction line in ##\left( \frac p k \right)## isn't supposed to be there, but i didn't know how to remove it..its supposed to be p choose k.
proof. Suppose p is prime and k ##\epsilon## Z such that 0 < k < p.

##p! = \left( \frac p k \right)k!(p-k)!##
##p!## has a factor of p.
##k!## has no factor of p because p > k.
##(p-k)!## has no factor of p because p > (p-k).

So ##\left( \frac p k \right)k!(p-k)! = p\frac {(p-1)!} {k!(p-k)!} k!(p-k)!##
and ##p## must be a factor of ##\left( \frac p k \right)## since ##p## is not a factor of ##k!## nor ##(p-k)!## but how do you show that ##\frac {(p-1)!} {k!(p-k)!}## is an integer?
The code for the binomial coefficient is \binom{p}{k}.
Do you know that ##\binom{p}{k} =: m \in \mathbb{Z}\,##, i.e. may you use it as a given?
If so, you could write ##\binom{p}{k} = \frac{p \, \cdot \ldots \cdot \, (p-k+1)}{1\, \cdot \ldots \cdot \, k}=m## and deal with this fraction together with the definition of a prime.
 
  • #3
fishturtle1 said:

Homework Statement


The book wants me to use direct proof.

if p is a prime and k is an integer for which 0 < k < p, then p divides ##\left( \frac p k \right)##

Homework Equations


##\left( \frac p k \right) = \frac {p!} {k!(p-k)!}##

The Attempt at a Solution


the fraction line in ##\left( \frac p k \right)## isn't supposed to be there, but i didn't know how to remove it..its supposed to be p choose k.
proof. Suppose p is prime and k ##\epsilon## Z such that 0 < k < p.

##p! = \left( \frac p k \right)k!(p-k)!##
##p!## has a factor of p.
##k!## has no factor of p because p > k.
##(p-k)!## has no factor of p because p > (p-k).

So ##\left( \frac p k \right)k!(p-k)! = p\frac {(p-1)!} {k!(p-k)!} k!(p-k)!##
and ##p## must be a factor of ##\left( \frac p k \right)## since ##p## is not a factor of ##k!## nor ##(p-k)!## but how do you show that ##\frac {(p-1)!} {k!(p-k)!}## is an integer?

You can use either "{p \choose k}" or "\binom{p}{k}" (as Fresh_42 suggested).

Alternatively, you can use the older notation "{}^pC_k" (giving ##{}^pC_k##) or "C^p_k" (giving ##C^p_k##). Sometimes I just use "C(p,k)" in a forum like this when being fancy does not matter very much; however, I would always state what the notation means in every case.
 
  • #4
Thank you both for the help on notation.
fresh_42 said:
The code for the binomial coefficient is \binom{p}{k}.
Do you know that ##\binom{p}{k} =: m \in \mathbb{Z}\,##, i.e. may you use it as a given?
If so, you could write ##\binom{p}{k} = \frac{p \, \cdot \ldots \cdot \, (p-k+1)}{1\, \cdot \ldots \cdot \, k}=m## and deal with this fraction together with the definition of a prime.
Yes we can use that definition, I didn't think about that though.

Proof.
Suppose p is a prime number and k is an integer such that p > k > 0.
##\binom{p}{k} \epsilon Z##.
therefore ##\binom{p}{k}## must have a prime factorization.

##\binom{p}{k} = \frac {p!}{k!(p-k)!} = p\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}##
p is prime, therefore ##\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}## must also be prime so it is also an integer.

So p | ##\binom{p}{k}## is true.

I think this is what you were suggesting.
 
  • #5
fishturtle1 said:
Thank you both for the help on notation.

Yes we can use that definition, I didn't think about that though.

Proof.
Suppose p is a prime number and k is an integer such that p > k > 0.
##\binom{p}{k} \epsilon Z##.
therefore ##\binom{p}{k}## must have a prime factorization.

##\binom{p}{k} = \frac {p!}{k!(p-k)!} = p\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}##
p is prime, therefore ##\frac {(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}## must also be prime so it is also an integer.

So p | ##\binom{p}{k}## is true.

I think this is what you were suggesting.
Not really, because it looks as if you would have the same problem as before. I meant to multiply the entire equation with the denominator to get rid of fractions.
What is a prime? (I hope they defined it properly to you.)

However, your approach should work as well, but then you have to use the unique prime factorization of integers, which is a theorem and should be mentioned. I only use the definition of a prime number. You could do both.
 
  • #6
fresh_42 said:
Not really, because it looks as if you would have the same problem as before. I meant to multiply the entire equation with the denominator to get rid of fractions.
What is a prime? (I hope they defined it properly to you.)

However, your approach should work as well, but then you have to use the unique prime factorization of integers, which is a theorem and should be mentioned. I only use the definition of a prime number. You could do both.
Here's what they say a prime number is: A natural number ##n## is a prime if it has exactly two positive divisors, 1 and n.

Proof.
Suppose p is a prime number and k is an integer such that p > k > 0.
##\binom{p}{k} \epsilon Z##.

##\binom{p}{k} = \frac {p\cdot ... \cdot(p-k+1)}{1\cdot...\cdot k} = m##

##p\cdot ... \cdot(p-k+1) = m\cdot k!##

##p = \frac {m\cdot k!} {(p-1)\cdot ... \cdot (p-k+1)}##

p is prime and m is an integer, so by definition of a prime number either ##m = 1## and ##\frac {k!} {(p-1)\cdot ... \cdot(p-k+1)} = p ## or ##m = p## and ##\frac {k!} {(p-1)\cdot ... \cdot(p-k+1)} = 1##.

therefore ##\frac {k!} {(p-1)\cdot ... \cdot(p-k+1)}## must be an integer.

And since ##\binom{p}{k} = p\cdot \frac {k!} {(p-1)\cdot ... \cdot(p-k+1)}## then we can conclude that p divides ##\binom{p}{k}##

Would this be a valid proof using the definition of a prime number? I know you said get rid of fractions but I'm not sure what else I could do after the third line except divide by ##(p-1)\cdot ... \cdot (p-k+1)##
 
  • #7
But neither is ##m=1## nor ##m=p##. I haven't checked whether your claimed integers are really ones (I think you've swapped nominators and denominators). The "get rid of quotients" as an advice makes sense, because all statements of the problem involves integers: "prime", "divides", ##0<k<p\, , \,\binom{p}{k}##. Everything in it only makes sense for integers. Therefore ##p \cdot a = m \cdot k!## makes more sense as ## \frac{p \cdot a}{k!} = m## or other quotients do. And here you can use what you know: ##p\,\vert \,p \cdot a\,##.

I had a feeling that this would be the definition of a prime number you used. It is wrong. I mean it is accidentally true, but it's not how primes are defined. The real definition goes: ##p## is a prime number, if it has no multiplicative inverse (which in the case of integers is equivalent to say it's neither ##+1## nor ##-1##) and - and this is the crucial part - if it divides a product, then it has to divide one of the factors.

In formulas it reads:
$$
p \in \mathbb{Z} \text{ is prime } \Longleftrightarrow p \neq \pm 1 \text{ and } (\;p\,\vert \, a\cdot b \Longrightarrow p\,\vert \,a \text{ or } p\,\vert \,b\;)
$$
With this (correct) definition the result simply drops out of
fishturtle1 said:
##p\,\cdot ... \cdot\,(p-k+1) = m\cdot k!##

But as I said before, you can also use the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and apply it to ##m\cdot k!##, which says that integers have a unique factorization into primes. The "unique" part gives another solution.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
fresh_42 said:
But neither is ##m=1## nor ##m=p##. I haven't checked whether your claimed integers are really ones (I think you've swapped nominators and denominators). The "get rid of quotients" as an advice makes sense, because all statements of the problem involves integers: "prime", "divides", ##0<k<p\, , \,\binom{p}{k}##. Everything in it only makes sense for integers. Therefore ##p \cdot a = m \cdot k!## makes more sense as ## \frac{p \cdot a}{k!} = m## or other quotients do. And here you can use what you know: ##p\,\vert \,p \cdot a\,##.

I had a feeling that this would be the definition of a prime number you used. It is wrong. I mean it is accidentally true, but it's not how primes are defined. The real definition goes: ##p## is a prime number, if it has no multiplicative inverse (which in the case of integers is equivalent to say it's neither ##+1## nor ##-1##) and - and this is the crucial part - if it divides a product, then it has to divide one of the factors.

In formulas it reads:
$$
p \in \mathbb{Z} \text{ is prime } \Longleftrightarrow p \neq \pm 1 \text{ and } (\;p\,\vert \, a\cdot b \Longrightarrow p\,\vert \,a \text{ or } p\,\vert \,b\;)
$$
With this (correct) definition the result simply drops out ofBut as I said before, you can also use the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and apply it to ##m\cdot k!##, which says that integers have a unique factorization into primes. The "unique" part gives another solution.
Thanks for the response,

I think I got the proof using this new definition of a prime number. Sorry if it took a while, I was hung up on the definition for a bit.

Proof.
Suppose ##p## is prime and ##k## is an integer such that ##p## > ##k## > 0. ##\binom{p}{k} \epsilon Z##.

##\binom{p}{k} = \frac {p((p-1)\cdot...\cdot(p-k+1)} {k!} = m##

##p((p-1)\cdot...\cdot(p-k+1) = m \cdot k!##

p | ##p((p-1)\cdot...\cdot(p-k+1)## therefore p | ##m \cdot k!##

p | ##m \cdot k!## so p | m or p | k! but p does not divide k! because p is prime and p > k.

Therefore p | m <-> p | ##\binom{p}{k}## must be true.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42

1. What is prime factorization proof?

Prime factorization proof is a mathematical method used to break down a composite number into its prime factors. It involves finding the smallest prime numbers that can divide the original number evenly and multiplying them together to get the original number.

2. Why is prime factorization proof important?

Prime factorization proof is important because it helps us understand the fundamental building blocks of a number and can be used in various mathematical calculations, such as finding the greatest common factor or simplifying fractions.

3. How do you find the prime factors of a number?

To find the prime factors of a number, you can use a factor tree or division method. Start by dividing the number by the smallest prime number possible and continue dividing until the result is a prime number. Repeat this process for each factor until all prime factors have been found.

4. How do you know if a number is prime?

A number is prime if it can only be divided evenly by 1 and itself. In other words, it has no other factors besides 1 and itself. To determine if a number is prime, you can use trial division by dividing the number by all numbers between 2 and the square root of the number. If there is no remainder for any of the divisions, then the number is prime.

5. Can prime factorization proof be used for large numbers?

Yes, prime factorization proof can be used for large numbers. However, it may become more time consuming and complex for larger numbers. There are also certain algorithms and methods that can be used to make the process more efficient for large numbers.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
741
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
929
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
770
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
810
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top