Proving Prime Divisibility for {p \choose k}

  • Thread starter Thread starter zetafunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Division
zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



the idea is to prove wether a prime 'p' divides the quantities {p \choose k}

for k=01,2,3,...,p-1

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



i have tried by inspection for small primes 3,5,7,11,13,17,... but can not guess a simple solution , the idea is to see if for p prime , the Cyclotomic polynomial

x^{p}+...+x+1 for p prime.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Trying more general circumstances, where p is any prime, we get the simpler question of whether the product (p-1)...(p-n) is divisible by n+1 for all n <= p - 1.
Ie., for n = 1, we question whether p-1 is divisible by 2, which is trivial. (p-1)(p-2) divisibility by 3 can be seen as well with a little more care.
There is a basic divisibility theorem about these products that you may have already proven earlier. If not, it is not difficult to prove by a little inspection.
 
Hi zetafunction! :smile:
zetafunction said:
the idea is to prove wether a prime 'p' divides the quantities {p \choose k}

for k=01,2,3,...,p-1

If p is prime, how can it not divide pCk (except for k = 0) …

there's a p on the top, and nothing larger than p-1 on the bottom. :redface:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi zetafunction! :smile:


If p is prime, how can it not divide pCk (except for k = 0) …

there's a p on the top, and nothing larger than p-1 on the bottom. :redface:

This question may only be trivial in retrospect. ;) The quotient \frac{(r-1)!}{(r-k)!k!} trivially simplifies to \frac{(r-1)\cdots(r-k-1)}{k!} which depends on k! successfully dividing the product on the top. This is not generally true when r is not prime. Ie., 8 does not divide 8C4.
It is then up to the OP to show why this is true for primes, but not necessarily composites.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top