A quick question on coefficient of binomial expansion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of binomial coefficients, specifically whether C(n,r) is always an integer when n and r are integers, and the divisibility of C(mp,r) by a prime p when r is not divisible by p. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if C(n,r) is always an integer for integer values of n and r, seeking clarification and proof.
  • Another participant proposes a theorem regarding the divisibility of C(mp,r) by a prime p, suggesting it requires proof.
  • A participant asserts that C(n,i) is always an integer and provides a reasoning based on its representation in the binomial expansion.
  • One participant attempts to prove that p divides C(mp,r) by analyzing its factorial representation and counting factors of p in the numerator and denominator.
  • A later reply elaborates on the counting of factors of p in the context of the theorem, introducing concepts like Div(a,p) and Mod(a,p) to clarify the proof.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the proof and requests a simpler explanation of the terms used, indicating a lack of understanding of the mathematical concepts involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that C(n,r) is an integer for integer n and r, but there is no consensus on the clarity or completeness of the proof regarding the divisibility of C(mp,r) by p. Multiple competing views and levels of understanding remain evident in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about specific mathematical terms and concepts, such as Div and Mod, indicating that the discussion may involve assumptions or definitions that are not universally understood.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in combinatorics, number theory, or those seeking to understand the properties of binomial coefficients and their applications in proofs involving divisibility.

AlbertEinstein
Messages
113
Reaction score
1
Is it always necessary that C(n,r) is an integer if n and r are integers ?
Is there any proof ?Please clarify.

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the above statement is trivial, does the following theorem requires a proof:

Th: Prove that p divides C(mp,r) where p is a prime and r is an integer not divisible by p.
 
Yes, nCi is always an integer (for n, i integers and 0<= i<= n). One proof is to note that nCi is the coefficient of xiyn-i in (x+ y)n- which is necessarily an integer.

I would not say that that was "trivial" and certainly would expect a proof of the theorem you give.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well then for the proof is it enough to write that
C(mp,r) = (mp)! / (r!) (mp-r)!
= mp(mp-1)(mp-2)../ (r!) (mp-r)!
= p*an integer

Therefore p divides C(mp,r).
 
AlbertEinstein said:
If the above statement is trivial, does the following theorem requires a proof:

Th: Prove that p divides C(mp,r) where p is a prime and r is an integer not divisible by p.

[tex]C(mp,r) = \frac{(mp)!}{(mp-r)!r!} = C(n,i)[/itex] where mp = n and i = r. So long as r greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to mp you clearly get an integer by the basic construction. In fact this coefficient has to happen for one of the term's in the expansion of [itex](x+1)^{mp}[/itex]. So you have an integer and now you want to know whether it is divisible by p? Think about expanding it and writing each factor in the numerator and denominator in the form pa+r. Notice that there must be m factors in the numerator that are divisible by p. The number of factors in the denominator divisible by p are related like this<br /> <br /> [tex]Div(r,p)+ Div(mp-r,p) < m \leftrightarrow Mod(r,p)\neq0[/tex]<br /> <br /> Just simply count them if Div(r,p) = 4 and Mod(r,p) > 0 then subtracting r from mp removes the factors mp, (m-1)p, (m-2)p, (m-3)p, (m-4)p. So there were m factors divisible by p in mp!, in (mp-r)! there are m-5 the sum of m-5 and 4 is m-1 factors in the denominator to cancel the m factors in the numerator. C(mp,r) is divisible by p unless Mod(r,p)=0 ie r is divisble by p, so the answer to your question is yes the statement is true. However I do not think it is obvious from the first statement you made. We can get at this more obviously by the following<br /> <br /> [tex]Div(mp,p)=Div(r+(mp-r),p) =Div(r,p)+ Div(mp-r,p)+\{0,1\}[/tex]<br /> [tex]m-\{0,1\} =Div(r,p) + Div(mp-r,p)[/tex]<br /> <br /> Residues are not completely obliterated by the Div operator, they survive as elements of the set {0,1}. We could give such sets the name case identifier sets or <b>case sets</b>. The only way for case = 1 to hold is for there to be residues of both r and mp-r modulo p, that is r and p are coprime.[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Hey playdo,I understood only the first paragraph.I showed that C(mp,r) is a multiple of p and hence the theorem follows.Does my proof lack something? I didn't understand what Div is .Could you explain in some more basic terms?

Thanks.
 
Hey everyone, please help me.:frown:
 
AlbertEinstein said:
Hey playdo,I understood only the first paragraph.I showed that C(mp,r) is a multiple of p and hence the theorem follows.Does my proof lack something? I didn't understand what Div is .Could you explain in some more basic terms?

Thanks.

Div(a,p) means integer division of a by p. Mod(a,p) is a related function it means the remainder after dividing a by p. The following statement is true generally and is called the division algorithm

a = aDiv(a,p)+Mod(a,p)

Mod(a,p) is alos sometimes written as a Mod p. I prefer the function notation. Your theroem is true and I gave a proof because I think one was required and it was interesting.

Does that help? :smile:

If it doesn't don't worry about it. I am wondering what I was drinking that night myself. When I wrote it, it was as clear as a bell to me. No it works write this

[tex]Div(r,p)+Div(mp-r,p) = \frac{r-Mod(r,p)}{p}+\frac{mp-r -Mod(mp-r,p)}{p}[/tex]

No if p divides r then Mod(r,p)=Mod(mp-r,p) = 0 so this last becomes

[tex]r/p + m - r/p = m[/tex]

If p does not divide r this becomes

[tex]r/p + m - r/p -(Mod(r,p)+Mod(mp-r,p))/p = m-1[/tex]

That should help.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K