B Issue with Binomial Expansion Formula

Reingley
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Working through Leonard Susskind's book The Theoretical Minimum, I noticed an issue with his expansion for the Binomial Expansion (he was missing factorials in the denominators). This led me to some confusion about the final term that is generally written (bn).

(a+b)n = an + nan-1b + n(n-1)/2! an-2b2 + ... + bn

My issue with this is that if one were to solve for n = 2, the b2 term comes out from the 3rd term (2! term) and there is no need to add the bn=2 term at the end.

Is my problem that if I am using n = 2, I shouldn't even bother to include the 3rd term (and all higher order terms that incidentally go to zero anyways)? It seems to me that the bn term is simply unnecessary at the end.

Thanks for any input!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For ##n=2## the third term and ##b^2## are identical. So the notion of ##b^n## is there to show where the expansion ends.
Of course you are free to write it as ##\binom{n}{n}a^{n-n}b^n## instead, but ##b^n## is more convenient.

In its closed version ##(a+b)^n = \sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k}a^{n-k}b^k## the last term is written the way you want it to be.
 
Thanks! That makes sense. I figured it was confusion on my part with the notation, but I wanted to check that I hadn't overlooked something obvious.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top