Proving Prime Divisibility for {p \choose k}

  • Thread starter Thread starter zetafunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Division
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



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

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

[tex]x^{p}+...+x+1[/tex] 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 [tex]{p \choose k}[/tex]

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 [itex]\frac{(r-1)!}{(r-k)!k!}[/itex] trivially simplifies to [itex]\frac{(r-1)\cdots(r-k-1)}{k!}[/itex] 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.