Probability - factorial algebraic manipulation

DrummingAtom
Messages
657
Reaction score
2
I saw this in my book and I'm having a difficult time figuring out how this formula was manipulated algebraically to equal the other side. I know that it works because I've used it several times but I can't show that it is true.

\frac{n(n-1)...(n-r+1)}{r!} = \frac {n!}{(n-r)!r!}

One of the things I tried was cross multiplied the r! and canceled it then multilpied the (n-r)!to the other side. Which I was left with:

[n(n-1)...(n-r+1)]*[(n-r)!]= n!

From here I tried expanding the factorials then cancelling stuff but I'm still not seeing the pattern. Thanks for any help.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Look at the left hand of your last equation. We have:
n(n-1)\cdots (n-r +1)
times
(n-r)! = (n-r)(n-r-1)\cdots (2)(1)
Multiplying these together you get
n(n-1)\cdots (n-r +1)(n-r)\cdots (2)(1) = n!
 
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