Proof of Haldane's Binomial Expansion

gnome
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
1
The next-to-last step in the proof on pg 1 of this article

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3444%28194511%2933%3A3%3C222%3AOAMOEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Whttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3444%28194511%2933%3A3%3C222%3AOAMOEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

makes this substitution

\sum_{r=0}^\infty \binom {m+r-2}{r} q^r = (1-q)^{1-m}

I don't see it. How does
(1-q)^{1-m} = \sum_{r=0}^\infty \binom{1-m}{r} (-q)^r
or
(1-q)^{1-m} = \sum_{r=0}^\infty \binom{1-m}{r} (-q)^{1-m-r}
transform to the expression given by Haldane?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I just remembered that this m is always a positive integer so (1-m) is 0 or negative.

The key to this must be here...

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NegativeBinomialSeries.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top