Issue with Binomial Expansion Formula

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion addresses an issue with the Binomial Expansion formula as presented in Leonard Susskind's book, The Theoretical Minimum. The user identified a missing factorial in the denominators of the expansion, leading to confusion regarding the necessity of the final term, bn. Specifically, for n = 2, the user questioned the inclusion of the b2 term, which is redundant due to the equivalence of the third term and b2. The clarification provided indicates that while the term is not strictly necessary for n = 2, it serves to illustrate the general form of the expansion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Binomial Theorem
  • Familiarity with factorial notation
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
  • Knowledge of combinatorial notation, specifically binomial coefficients
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Binomial Theorem in detail, focusing on its applications and implications.
  • Learn about factorials and their role in combinatorial mathematics.
  • Explore the concept of binomial coefficients and their notation.
  • Investigate the closed form of the Binomial Expansion and its derivation.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching algebra and combinatorics, and anyone seeking to clarify their understanding of the Binomial Expansion and its notation.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K