This is the only part I don't get. I know nCr was assumed to be an integer (induction hypothesis) but where was nC(r-1) assumed to be an integer? Is this some sort of axiom, that if nCr is an integer, then nC(r-1) is one too? I understand the other parts of the proof and I know what induction...
But you're trying to prove that any nCr will be an integer by induction. If you haven't proven it yet, then how can you say that nC(r-1) will be an integer?
Ok, so he says that {n+1}Cr = nCr + nC{r-1}, which I understand. What I don't get is how it "follows" that {n+1}Cr is an integer as well, since you would need to show that both nCr and nC{r-1} are integers to use the closure property. We know the first one by assumption, but how do you know...
I understand that {n+1}Cr = nCr + nC{r-1}, but can someone tell me why it follows that {n+1}Cr are natural numbers just from that statement and the inductive hypothesis that nCr is all natural numbers?