Series with binomial coefficients

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a complex equation involving binomial coefficients, presented in Mathematica code, which simplifies to an identity according to Mathematica's FullSimplify command. The user seeks an analytical explanation for why this equation holds true, despite the output confirming its validity. All parameters in the equation are stated to be weakly positive and real. The user also attempts to express the equation in LaTeX format but struggles with the formatting. The conversation highlights the challenge of understanding the analytical reasoning behind the identity, despite computational verification.
ydydry
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all, I have an apparently simple equation. I copy here its Mathematica code:

Sum[(p/(1 - p))^s*(q/(1 - q))^s*Binomial[n, s]*(Binomial[m - 1, s]*(p*q*(m + n) + (2*m - 1)*(-p - q + 1))), {s, 0, n}] == Sum[(p/(1 - p))^s*(q/(1 - q))^s*Binomial[n, s]*((-(-p - q + 1))*Binomial[m - 2, s] + m*p*q*Binomial[m, s] + m*(-p - q + 1)*(Binomial[m - 2, s] + Binomial[m, s])), {s, 0, n}]

Mathematica's FullSimplify command immediately tells me that it is an identity, giving me "True" as output, but I fail to see the analytical reason.

All parameters are weakly positive and reals, although I do not need to assume anything for Mathematica to tell me that it is indeed an identity.

Thanks a lot!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Try translating the equation into latex form.
 
\overset{n}{\underset{s=0}{\sum }}\left( \frac{pq}{(1-p)(1-q)}\right)
^{s}\left( \begin{array}{c}n \\
s%
\end{array}%
\right) \left[ \left( \begin{array}{c}m-1 \\
s%
\end{array}%
\right) (pq(m+n)+(2m-1)(1-p-q))\right] =\overset{n}{\underset{s=0}{\sum }}%
\left( \frac{pq}{(1-p)(1-q)}\right) ^{s}\left( \begin{array}{c}n \\
s%
\end{array}%
\right) \left[ (m-1)\left( \begin{array}{c}m-2 \\
s%
\end{array}%
\right) (1-p-q)+\left( \begin{array}{c}m \\
s%
\end{array}%
\right) mpq+\left( \begin{array}{c}m \\
s%
\end{array}%
\right) m(1-p-q))\right]
 
I apologize for the last attempt to write the code in Latex. I am not familiar with the software, and I clearly failed. I enclose a picture of the expression, which should be more readable than the non-sense above code
 

Attachments

  • Sin título.png
    Sin título.png
    17 KB · Views: 585
It looks messy enough. Try looking at the expression to the right of nCs on both sides and see if they are equal.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top