How to Simplify (2n-1)? Any Takes?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marc.morcos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Simplify
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of the expression (2n-1)!, with participants exploring various interpretations and methods related to factorials. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and homework-related inquiries.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the meaning of "simplify" in the context of (2n-1)!.
  • One participant suggests that (2n)! can be expressed as (2n)! = 2n!(n+1), proposing a similar approach for (2n-1)!.
  • Another participant claims that the expression 2n!/2n is incorrect for (2n-1)!, stating it simplifies to (n-1)!, which does not match the original expression.
  • A participant clarifies that the correct expression should be (2n)!/2n for (2n-1)!, emphasizing the factorial's precedence in operations.
  • There is a mention of Stirling's approximation as a method for calculating (2n-1)! for large n.
  • Some participants discuss the precedence of the factorial operator compared to multiplication and exponentiation, with differing levels of familiarity with these conventions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simplification of (2n-1)!, with no consensus reached on the correct approach or interpretation of the factorial operations involved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and operations of factorials, as well as the implications of mathematical precedence in expressions involving factorials.

marc.morcos
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Any Takes?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Oh boy -- wait until Danger gets a hold of this one!
 
1)Part of a homework?
2)What do you mean by "simplify"?
 
i mean like u know how
(n+1)! = n!(n+1)

can we do something like that for (2n-1)!
 
2n!/2n

Simple enough?
:smile:
 
tehno said:
2n!/2n

Simple enough?
:smile:

Simple enough, but it is also wrong.

\frac {2n!} {2n} = (n-1)!

Which is not the original expression.
 
I think he meant (2n)!/2n...
 
tehno got it right, integral is wrong. In other words m!=m*(m-1)!, where m=2n.
 
mathman said:
tehno got it right, integral is wrong. In other words m!=m*(m-1)!, where m=2n.

Integral is correct. Pedantically correct, but correct. Math and sloppiness don't mix. The factorial operator has a higher precedence than multiplication:
2n! = 2(n!)
Therefore,
\frac{2n!}{2n} = \frac 2 2 \frac {n!}n = (n-1)!

Techno meant to say
(2n-1)! = \frac{(2n)!}{2n}
 
  • #10
Does not (2n-1)! look simple enough itself, giving a clear impression of the function! If one tries to calculate the value of it in a simpler fashion for large n then "Stirling's" approximation is available.
 
  • #11
D H said:
The factorial operator has a higher precedence than multiplication:

i've never heard of that before... :rolleyes: :confused:
 
  • #12
fourier jr said:
i've never heard of that before... :rolleyes: :confused:

Factorial is repeated multiplication, as is exponentiation. Exponentiation has higher precedence than multiplication, so it makes sense that factorial has higher precedence than multiplication. In fact, the factorial operator has higher precedence that exponentiation by convention.

Math and sloppiness don't mix. When in doubt, use parentheses. This rule carries over to computer programming. C, for example, has seventeen precedence levels. When in doubt, use parentheses.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K