Combinatorics Cameron - Lucas' Theorem Proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on Lucas' Theorem as presented in Peter Cameron's combinatorics book. The theorem states that for a prime p, the binomial coefficient (m choose n) is congruent to the product of binomial coefficients (ai choose bi) modulo p, where m and n are expressed in base p. The proof requires demonstrating that if m and n can be expressed in terms of their base p components, then the congruence holds. Understanding this induction step is crucial, as it establishes the theorem as a corollary once proven.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of binomial coefficients
  • Familiarity with modular arithmetic
  • Knowledge of prime numbers and their properties
  • Basic concepts of combinatorial proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Lucas' Theorem in detail from Peter Cameron's combinatorics book
  • Explore induction techniques in combinatorial proofs
  • Learn about modular arithmetic applications in combinatorics
  • Investigate other combinatorial theorems related to binomial coefficients
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for mathematicians, students of combinatorics, and anyone interested in advanced topics in number theory and modular arithmetic.

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 ) ≡ [itex]\prod[/itex] (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 ) [itex]\equiv[/itex] (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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It is the step of induction. Once it is proven, the theorem becomes a corollary.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K