I've been trying to understand the proof for the binomial theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the proof of the binomial theorem, specifically through inductive reasoning. Participants explore various approaches to the proof, express uncertainties about comprehending all possible patterns of terms, and share alternative formulations of the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to fully understand the inductive proof of the binomial theorem and questions whether they have seen all possible patterns of terms.
  • Another participant suggests that filling in all patterns in the proof is impossible but encourages exploring additional terms to validate the proof's legitimacy.
  • Several participants provide alternative formulations of the inductive proof, including a simplification by setting \(a = 1\) to demonstrate the identity more clearly.
  • There is mention of the technique of splitting sums and re-indexing as a useful method in understanding the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether all patterns of terms in the proof can be fully understood. While some agree on the validity of the inductive proof, others express uncertainty about their comprehension.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the proof could be simplified under certain conditions, such as setting specific values for variables, but the implications of these simplifications are not fully explored.

Chenkel
Messages
482
Reaction score
109
Hello everyone,

I've been trying to understand the proof for the binomial theorem and have been using this inductive proof for understanding.

So far the proof seems consistent everywhere it's explicit with the pattern it states, but I've started wondering if I actually fully grock it because I haven't seen all patterns of terms that might be possible.

I have trust that the binomial theorem works, I just want to be sure I fully understand the proof.

Let me know what you think, thank you!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Chenkel said:
but I've started wondering if I actually fully grock it because I haven't seen all patterns of terms that might be possible.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that you want the '...' in the proof filled in? That would be impossible, although you might fill in a couple more yourself to convince yourself that the proof is legitimate. Other than that, I don't think there are any other patterns of terms to consider.
 
Post to invoke Latex!
 
Last edited:
Chenkel said:
Hello everyone,

I've been trying to understand the proof for the binomial theorem and have been using this inductive proof for understanding.

So far the proof seems consistent everywhere it's explicit with the pattern it states, but I've started wondering if I actually fully grock it because I haven't seen all patterns of terms that might be possible.

I have trust that the binomial theorem works, I just want to be sure I fully understand the proof.

Let me know what you think, thank you!
An alternative for the inductive proof is:
$$(a + b)^{n+1} = (a+b)(a+b)^n = (a + b)\sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k}b^k$$$$= \sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k+1}b^k+ \sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k}b^{k+1}$$$$=\sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n+1 -k}b^k+ \sum_{k = 1}^{n+1} \binom n {k-1} a^{n+1-k}b^{k}$$$$= a^{n+1} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \binom n k a^{n+1 -k}b^k+ \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \binom n {k-1} a^{n+1-k}b^{k} + b^{n+1}$$$$= a^{n+1} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \bigg [\binom n k +\binom n {k-1}\bigg] a^{n+1 -k}b^k + b^{n+1}$$$$= a^{n+1} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \binom {n+1} k a^{n+1 -k}b^k + b^{n+1}$$$$= \sum_{k = 0}^{n+1} \binom {n+1} k a^{n+1 -k}b^k$$
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, Chenkel and Bosko
PS the proof could be simplified somewhat by noting that it is sufficient to prove the identity when ##a = 1##. Then, as a corollary we have:
$$(a + b)^n = a^n (1 + \frac b a)^n = a^n \sum_{k=0}^n \binom n k \big (\frac b a)^k$$$$= a^n \sum_{k=0}^n \binom n k a^{-k}b^k = \sum_{k=0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k}b^k$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chenkel and FactChecker
PeroK said:
An alternative for the inductive proof is:
$$(a + b)^{n+1} = (a+b)(a+b)^n = (a + b)\sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k}b^k$$$$= \sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k+1}b^k+ \sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n-k}b^{k+1}$$$$=\sum_{k = 0}^n \binom n k a^{n+1 -k}b^k+ \sum_{k = 1}^{n+1} \binom n {k-1} a^{n+1-k}b^{k}$$$$= a^{n+1} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \binom n k a^{n+1 -k}b^k+ \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \binom n {k-1} a^{n+1-k}b^{k} + b^{n+1}$$$$= a^{n+1} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \bigg [\binom n k +\binom n {k-1}\bigg] a^{n+1 -k}b^k + b^{n+1}$$$$= a^{n+1} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \binom {n+1} k a^{n+1 -k}b^k + b^{n+1}$$$$= \sum_{k = 0}^{n+1} \binom {n+1} k a^{n+1 -k}b^k$$
That helps a lot in me understanding, thank you!
 
Chenkel said:
That helps a lot in me understanding, thank you!
It's more compact that way. Note that the technique of splitting up the sum into two sums, re-indexing one (or both) of them, before re-combining them is a useful idea to remember.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chenkel

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K