Binomial series vs Binomial theorem, scratching my head for three days on this

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences and relationships between the Binomial Series and the Binomial Theorem, focusing on the definitions and implications of the binomial coefficient in both contexts. Participants explore the mathematical foundations and potential misunderstandings related to these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Binomial Series as \(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\binom{n}{r} x^n\) and questions how this relates to the definition of the binomial coefficient when \(n\) is not necessarily an integer.
  • Another participant suggests using Gamma functions to express the binomial coefficient, noting that poles in the Gamma function lead to finite expansions for integer powers.
  • Several participants emphasize that in the context of the Binomial Series, \(n\) can take non-integer values, which is a key distinction from the traditional binomial coefficient definition.
  • There are corrections regarding the formula for the binomial coefficient, with participants asserting that it should be \(\binom{n}{r} = \frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{r!}\) instead of the initially presented form.
  • One participant argues that the original binomial series presented is incorrect and suggests that the summation should be over \(r\) instead of \(n\), proposing the formula \((1+x)^n = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \binom{n}{r} x^r\) as valid for complex \(n\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of the Binomial Series and the binomial coefficient, indicating that there is no consensus on these points. Some participants agree on the need for clarity regarding the use of non-integer values for \(n\), while others challenge the initial definitions and formulations presented.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions and properties of the binomial coefficient when extended to non-integer values, as well as the implications of using Gamma functions in this context. The discussion reflects a mix of mathematical reasoning and corrections that have not been fully settled.

gretun
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
In my book, it says that the Binomial Series is

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\binom{n}{r} x^n

Where \binom{n}{r} = \frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{n!} for r\geq1 and \binom{n}{0} = 1

Now here is where it got to be, I know that the \binom{n}{r} = \frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{n!} were derived through the power series, but how does it explained the original statement that \sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\binom{n}{r} x^n?

Since \binom{n}{r} does not actually change. I mean it is still \frac{n!}{(n-r)!r!} and so how can you put negative n into n!?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One way to think of it is to rewrite the binomial coefficient in terms of Gamma functions:

\left(\begin{array}{c}n \\ r \end{array}\right) = \frac{\Gamma(n+1)}{\Gamma(n-r+1)\Gamma(r+1)}

The Gamma function \Gamma(z) has poles at z = 0, -1, -2, \dots, or equivalently, 1/\Gamma(z) has zeroes at these points, so when n-r+1 \leq 0 the denominator of the binomial coefficient becomes infinite and so the coefficient vanishes. Hence the series terminates and you get a finite expansion for integer powers.

It is only at the negative integers that the gamma function has poles, so when n - r + 1 is not an integer, the Gamma function doesn't vanish, and you get an infinite series.

(Note: I don't think this is a rigorous argument, but I think it can be made rigorous by defining the properties of 1/\Gamma(z) precisely such that it has zeros where \Gamma(z) has poles. I'll leave it to any more mathematician-minded posters to fill in the gaps in rigor).
 
I think the main thing the OP is simply missing is that for Binomial series, n is not necessarily an integer, which is why they write it out in the longer form, as the one with factorials only works with integers.
 
Gib Z said:
I think the main thing the OP is simply missing is that for Binomial series, n is not necessarily an integer, which is why they write it out in the longer form, as the one with factorials only works with integers.

Did they flip the formula of combinatorics?
 
gretun said:
\binom{n}{r} = \frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{n!}

This is incorrect. It should be

\binom{n}{r} = \frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{r!}
 
g_edgar said:
This is incorrect. It should be

\binom{n}{r} = \frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{r!}

Oh right sorry lol, my tex was wrong.
 
I think your original binomial series is wrong too.

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\binom{n}{r} x^n

The correct one should be summing about r, not n. i.e.

(1+x)^n = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \binom{n}{r} x^r

This formula is valid, even for complex n. You are right that this formula can be derived using Taylor series.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K