MHB How Does the Constant '2' Arise in Binomial Theorem Equalities?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gladeligen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the constant '2' in the context of the binomial theorem. The equality in question relates to the sum of binomial coefficients, which equals 2 raised to the power of n. This is explained through combinatorial proofs, where the left side counts subsets of a set, leading to the conclusion that each element can either be included or excluded, resulting in 2 choices per element. Various proof methods exist, including induction and differentiation, but combinatorial reasoning is highlighted as particularly intuitive. Overall, the constant '2' arises from the binary nature of subset formation in a set of size n.
gladeligen
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
View attachment 6378

Hi!

My first post!

I was wondering if anyone could explain this equality in words?
I do not understand how the k became a constant (2) on the right side?Best
Flippa
 

Attachments

  • 2017-01-30 (2).png
    2017-01-30 (2).png
    5.6 KB · Views: 111
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

Proving equalities in words is not something mathematicians usually do. They usually prove equalities by a series of formulas. Perhaps the most intuitive type of proofs of similar facts is combinatorial proofs, where you consider a set and count its size in two different ways. You can find one such proof on StackExchange. It relies on the fact that $\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}=2^n$. This fact also has a combinatorial proof: $\binom{n}{k}$ is the number of subsets of size $k$ of the set of size $n$, so the left-hand side is the number of all subsets of a set of size $n$. This number is known to be $2^n$ because each of the $n$ elements either occurs in a subset or does not (thus $n$ consecutive independent yes/no choices). There are many other proofs of the same fact on the SE page and pages linked therein: some use induction, others differentiation, etc.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top