B Issue with Binomial Expansion Formula

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a perceived issue with the Binomial Expansion formula presented in Leonard Susskind's book, specifically regarding missing factorials in the denominators. The confusion arises when evaluating the expansion for n=2, where the last term, b^2, seems redundant since it matches the third term. Participants clarify that the b^n term is included to indicate the expansion's conclusion, despite being unnecessary for specific values of n. They suggest that using the closed form of the expansion, which includes binomial coefficients, may resolve the confusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of notation in understanding the Binomial Expansion.
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.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top