Binomial expansion

  1. I am puzzled by the following example of the application of binomial expansion from Bostock and Chandler's book Pure Mathematics:

    If n is a positive integer find the coefficient of xr in the expansion of (1+x)(1-x)n as a series of ascending powers of x.

    [itex](1+x)(1-x)^{n} \equiv (1-x)^{n} + x(1-x)^{n} [/itex]

    [itex]\equiv\sum^{n}_{r=0} { }^{n}C_{r}(-x)^{r} + x\sum^{n}_{r=0} { }^{n}C_{r}(-x)^{r}[/itex]

    [itex]\equiv\sum^{n}_{r=0} { }^{n}C_{r}(-1)^{r} x^{r}+ \sum^{n}_{r=0} { }^{n}C_{r}(-1)^{r}x^{r+1}[/itex]

    [itex]\equiv [1-{ }^{n}C_{1}x+{ }^{n}C_{2}x^{2}...+{ }^{n}C_{r-1}(-1)^{r-1} x^{r-1}+{ }^{n}C_{r}(-1)^{r} x^{r}+...+(-1)^{n}x^{n}][/itex]

    [itex]+[x-{ }^{n}C_{1}x^{2}+...+{ }^{n}C_{r-1}(-1)^{r-1} x^{r}+{ }^{n}C_{r}(-1)^{r} x^{r+1}+...+(-1)^{n}x^{n+1}][/itex]

    [itex]\equiv\sum^{n}_{r=0} [{ }^{n}C_{r}(-1)^{r} + { }^{n}C_{r-1}(-1)^{r-1}]x^{r}[/itex]

    The 4th and 5th line seemed a peculiar way of writing it. Were they just trying to demonstrate how the second series is always one power of x ahead?

    The last expression seems to require a definition of [itex]{ }^{n}C_{-1}[/itex] which hasn't been defined in the book so I'm guessing I have misunderstood something. Could someone please explain this for me?
    Apologies for any typos, I'm using a mobile. Very fiddley.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Simon Bridge

    Simon Bridge 14,797
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    That's what it looks like to me - the author is making a step in the calculation explicit.

    Do you see how the last line is derived from the one before it?

    Notes:
    ...everything from the third "equivalence" sign to (but not including) the fourth one is all one line of calculation.
    Do Bostock and Chandler number their working, their equations?
     
  4. micromass

    micromass 18,661
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You likely didn't misunderstand anything, the book just has been incomplete. The book should have mentioned that we define ##{}^nC_m = 0## for ##m< 0## and ##m>n##.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. AlephZero

    AlephZero 7,300
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Yes.

    I think the book is a bit careless there. ##{}^{n}C_{k}## is normally only defined for ##0 <= k <= n##. But the only "sensible" defintiion when ##k < 0## or ##k > n## is zero. If you define ##{}^{n}C_{k}## as the number of ways to choose objects from a set, there are no ways to choose more than n different objects from a set of n, and you can't choose a negative number of objects. If you define it using Pascal's triangle, any numbers "outside" the triangle need to be 0 to make the formulas work properly.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Simon Bridge

    Simon Bridge 14,797
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The definition being used should be evident by following the derivation though... looking at the coefficient of x^0, probably why the authors felt they could be a bit sloppy there?
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Thank you so much for clarifying that for me.
     
  8. The last articulation appears to oblige a meaning of nc−1 which hasn't been characterized in the book so I'm speculating I have misconstrued something. Would someone be able to please clarify this for me?

    Expressions of remorse for any typos, I'm utilizing a versatile. Exceptionally fiddle...
     
  9. Simon Bridge

    Simon Bridge 14,797
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    This question has already been asked and answered - see post #3.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

0
Draft saved Draft deleted