Prove Summation Equation: (2^n-1)n for Any Integer n

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tiny-tim
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the summation equation \(\sum_{0\,\leq\,m\,< n/2}\,(-1)^m(n - 2m)^n\,^nC_m\ =\ 2^{n-1}\,n!\) for any integer \(n\). Participants explore different methods of proof, including brute force and combinatorial approaches, while also referencing related resources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the summation equation and provides an example calculation to illustrate it.
  • Another participant suggests that there may be both brute force and clever combinatorial methods to prove the equation, hinting at a preference for discovering the latter.
  • A further reply mentions a geometric-combinatorial proof found accidentally while exploring a homework thread, expressing a desire for a more straightforward solution technique.
  • One participant questions whether the problem is sourced from a specific book, indicating a potential reference for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to prove the equation, and multiple competing views regarding the methods of proof remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to different proof techniques and acknowledges the complexity of the problem, but does not resolve the mathematical steps or assumptions involved in the summation equation.

tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
25,837
Reaction score
258
Prove, for any integer n:

\sum_{0\,\leq\,m\,&lt; n/2}\,(-1)^m(n - 2m)^n\,^nC_m\ =\ 2^{n-1}\,n!

for example, 77 - 577 + 3721 - 1735

= 823543 - 546875 + 45927 - 35 = 304560 = 64 times 5040
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm guessing there is a brute force way to prove this as well as a clever combinatoric argument, and you're hoping we only find the first, so you can dazzle us with the second? :biggrin:
 
Gokul43201 said:
I'm guessing there is a brute force way to prove this as well as a clever combinatoric argument, and you're hoping we only find the first, so you can dazzle us with the second? :biggrin:

Hi Gokul! :smile:

Sort of … I accidentally found a geometric-cum-combinatoric proof of this while looking at a homework thread,

but I couldn't help thinking that there must be some way of solving this just by looking at it and coming up with a solution …

but no ordinary technique comes to mind since the exponand (is that the right word? :redface:) keeps changing.

I was hoping somebody knew a finding-the-solution technique (maybe for a simpler problem), rather than an already-knowing-what the-solution-is technique! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K