Combinatorics Cameron - Lucas' Theorem Proof

RiceRiceRice
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Combinatorics Cameron -- Lucas' Theorem Proof

Hi everybody --

Im currently going through Peter Cameron's combinatorics book, and I'm having trouble understanding a step in the proof of Lucas' Theorem, given on page 28 for those of you with the book.

The theorem states for p prime,

m = a0 + a1p + . . . + akpk
n = b0 + b1p + . . . + bkpk

where 0 ≤ ai, bi < p for i = 0, . . ., k -1. Then:

(m choose n ) ≡ \prod (ai choose bi ) (mod p), where the product is taken from i = 0 to i = k.

The proof then states:

It suffices to show that, if m = cp + a and n = dp + b, where 0 ≤ a, b < p, then

(m choose n ) \equiv (c choose d) * (a choose b) (mod p) FOR

a = a0
b = b0
c = a1 + . . . + akpk-1
d = b1 + . . . + bkpk-1

I understand the proof of this statement, but I don't know why proving this is sufficient to proving the original theorem.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


It is the step of induction. Once it is proven, the theorem becomes a corollary.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top