Something I can't seem to prove

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skynt
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the equality of two algebraic expressions involving factorials. The user struggles to simplify the left-hand side, particularly with the term [n - (i + 1)]!. They note that the formula relates to Pascal's triangle, indicating its combinatorial significance. The challenge lies in combining the fractions effectively to demonstrate their equivalence. Assistance is sought to clarify the algebraic manipulation required for the proof.
Skynt
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
It should be really simple, but I think the algebra is bogging me down:

\frac{n!}{(n-i)! i!} + \frac{n!}{[n-(i+1)]! (i+1)!} = \frac{(n+1)!}{(n-i)! (i+1)!}

Can anyone show me the process of proving this? I don't see how the two expressions are equal...

essentially I can't get rid of the [n - (i + 1)]! term when I try to combine the two fractions and expand things.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Notice that [n - i] * [n - (i + 1)]! = [n - i]!.
 
obviously *bangs head* thanks!
 
That is, by the way, the formula used for producing Pascal's triangle.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top