Proving C(n,m) is an Integer: Number Theory & Chinese Remainder Theorem?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that C(n,m) is an integer, where n and m are integers with n ≥ m ≥ 1. The original poster expresses difficulty in understanding the proof and questions whether the Chinese Remainder Theorem is necessary for this proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants discuss the conditions under which C(n,m) is an integer, emphasizing the need for n and m to be integers. Others suggest that a combinatorial derivation could provide clarity, while questioning the necessity of a number theory approach involving modular arithmetic.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different perspectives on the proof. Some guidance has been offered regarding the combinatorial interpretation of C(n,m), but there is no explicit consensus on the best approach or the necessity of the Chinese Remainder Theorem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of the integer nature of n and m as a restriction for the proof. There is also a suggestion that a number theory proof might exist, but it remains unexamined in detail.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


How would you prove using number theory that C(n,m) is an integer where n => m =>1? Do you need the Chinese Remainder Theorem? It seems like it should follow easily from what C(n,m) represents but it is hard for me for some reason.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
C(n,m) is only an integer under your given restrictions assuming that both n and m are also integers. I assume that you meant to include that as a further restriction?
 
This will follow rather easily if you use a notion from the combinatorial derivation C(n,k).

That is, if L = the set of ordered k element subsets of {1, 2, ... , n}, then

|L|= n(n-1)(n-2)...(n-k+1) <- This isn't very hard to show

Then with a bit more arguing, you can show that

|L| = C(n,k) * k! which intuitively makes sense since we're saying that the number of ordered sets is the number of unordered sets multiplied by the number of possible orderings.

(For a more formal argument, actually look up the combinatorial derivation of C(n,k)).

Thus it's clear that both |L| and k! are integers, and thus it follows that C(n,k) must also be an integer. It's not terribly hard to extend this to a divisibility argument.
 
Kreizhn said:
C(n,m) is only an integer under your given restrictions assuming that both n and m are also integers. I assume that you meant to include that as a further restriction?

Yes. I understand how it follows from the combinatorial derivation, but it seems like there should be a number theory proof with modular arithmetic or something...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K