Proving a formula with binomial coefficient when n=-1

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the formula for the binomial coefficient when n=-1, specifically that ##\binom{-1}{k}=(-1)^k##. The proof utilizes mathematical induction, starting with the base case ##\binom{-1}{0}=1##, which aligns with ##(-1)^0=1##. The inductive step confirms that if the formula holds for ##k##, it also holds for ##k+1##, thereby validating the proof. The participants suggest using gamma functions for a more rigorous approach, but the proof by induction is deemed sufficient for the problem's requirements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of binomial coefficients
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Basic knowledge of factorials
  • Awareness of gamma functions (optional for deeper understanding)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of binomial coefficients with negative integers
  • Learn about mathematical induction techniques in proofs
  • Explore the relationship between factorials and gamma functions
  • Review combinatorial identities and their proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in combinatorial proofs and mathematical induction techniques.

Seydlitz
Messages
262
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



Prove that ##\binom{-1}{k}=(-1)^k##

The Attempt at a Solution



Using induction on ##k##,

##\binom{-1}{0}=1## which is true also for ##(-1)^0=1##

Assuming ##\binom{-1}{k}=(-1)^k##, then ##\binom{-1}{k+1}=(-1)^{k+1}##

Indeed when ##n=-1##, we can write rewrite this ##\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}## as ##\frac{(-1)^k(k)!}{k!}## to avoid negative factorial. Hence ##\binom{-1}{k+1}=\frac{(-1)^k(k+1)!}{(k+1)!}=(-1)^{k+1}##.

##\blacksquare##

I just want to confirm if my proof by induction method is valid.

Thank You
 
Physics news on Phys.org
UltrafastPED said:
You should recast the combinatorials in terms of gamma functions before your start.

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BinomialCoefficient.html

This exercise is taken from Boas Mathematical Methods in Physics Chapter 1, the readers haven't been exposed to Gamma function nor does the problem actually requires one to prove the statement. It only requires one to show but I just want to prove it if possible using simple induction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K