Proof of Vandermonde's Identity by Induction

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SeReNiTy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around seeking an algebraic proof of Vandermonde's identity, specifically through the method of induction. Participants explore the identity's formulation and implications, including its application to real numbers and the desire to avoid using the binomial theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests guidance on proving Vandermonde's identity, expressing a need for clarity in notation and a LaTeX representation.
  • Another participant summarizes the identity in terms of summing coefficients of polynomials, noting its validity for non-positive integers.
  • A participant expresses a desire to prove the identity without relying on the binomial theorem, citing a weakness in their combinatorial skills.
  • One participant outlines their approach to an inductive proof, stating the base case is trivial and presenting the inductive hypothesis while struggling to complete the proof.
  • The inductive step involves manipulating the right-hand side of the identity and applying the inductive hypothesis, but the participant reports difficulty in progressing further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the formulation of Vandermonde's identity and the desire to find an inductive proof. However, there is no consensus on the method or approach to successfully complete the proof, as participants express varying levels of understanding and capability.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention definitions and properties of binomial coefficients, particularly for non-integer values, which may introduce complexity in the proof. The discussion reflects a range of mathematical techniques and assumptions that are not fully resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in combinatorial proofs, particularly those exploring Vandermonde's identity and induction methods in algebra.

SeReNiTy
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Can someone point me in the right direction with vandermonde's identity, I'm seeking a algebraic proof.

essentially it its the sum of (a ,k)(b ,n-k) = (a+b ,n) when summed over k = 0 to n.

Could someone right this out in latex since it is probably incomprehensible. I used (a ,k) to denote the binomial co-efficients and a,b are real numbers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bassically you sum up the coefficients of (1+x)^a*(1+x)^b=(1+x)^(a+b).
where (a+b,n) is the coeffeicnt of x^n.
it also works for a,b which are not positive integers.
p.s
didnt know it has a name. (-:
 
Last edited:
I want to do it without using binomial theorem. So by induction, but my combinatorics is weak...
 
So does anyone know of a proof using induction?

The identity is also known as vandermonde's convolution

[tex]\sum_{k=0}^{n}{a\choose k}{b \choose n-k}={a+b\choose n}[/tex]

Where a,b are real numbers. I already know of the proof using binomial theorem and the combinatorics counting argument, now I'm looking for a way to do it by induction, anyone got any hints/tips?

First off a few definitions for those that don't know, the binomial co-efficient can be defined for non intergers as follows:

[tex]{a\choose 0} = 1[/tex]

[tex]{a\choose n} = \frac{1}{n!} \prod_{i=1}^{n}{a-i+1}[/tex]

So far I got the following, the base case n=0 is trivial, now the inductive hypothesis is the above identity and I attempt to show the following is true assuming the inductive hypothesis:

[tex]\sum_{k=0}^{n+1}{a\choose k}{b \choose n+1-k}={a+b\choose n+1}[/tex]

Starting with RHS:

[tex]{a+b\choose n+1} = \frac{1}{(n+1)!} \prod_{i=1}^{n+1}{a+b-i+1}[/tex]

[tex]= \frac{a+b-n}{n+1} {a+b\choose n}[/tex]

Now you can apply the inductive hypothesis, but after that I'm lost. Tried many, many different algebraic tricks and ended up with nothing useful, just a lot of different equivalent forms of the convolution!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K