What Is Lockwood's Identity and How Does It Relate to Pascal's Triangle?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter robimaru
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Lockwood's identity and its relationship with Pascal's triangle, focusing on the proof of this identity and the exploration of its implications in combinatorial mathematics. Participants are engaged in both theoretical and practical aspects of the identity, including inductive proofs and summation properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant is seeking help with proving Lockwood's identity, specifically mentioning difficulties with the proof and providing a link to a related article.
  • Another participant discusses the inductive proof of the pattern in the equations related to the identity and suggests a method for establishing the equation for higher powers.
  • A participant questions the evaluation of summation limits, specifically whether a summation with an upper limit less than the lower limit equals zero, and notes that this is a common convention.
  • There is a suggestion that Lockwood's identity reveals relationships among entries in Pascal's triangle, with examples provided to illustrate this point.
  • Concerns are raised about the correctness of the proof developed by participants, with one expressing fear of failing the subject due to potential errors in their reasoning.
  • Participants discuss the implications of multiplying terms in their proof and how it affects the structure of the equations.
  • Another participant encourages the exploration of examples and the use of summation notation to clarify the proof process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty about the correctness of their proofs and the implications of Lockwood's identity. There is no clear consensus on the proof's validity or the interpretation of summation properties.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the participants' varying levels of experience with proof writing and the potential complexity of the mathematical expressions involved. Some assumptions about summation notation and inductive reasoning are not fully resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in combinatorial mathematics, mathematical proofs, and the relationships between algebraic identities and Pascal's triangle may find this discussion relevant.

robimaru
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
i am working on my expository research about integer sequences and their relationship with the pascal's triangle using the Lockwood's identity.
but unfortunately i can't provide a complete proof for the said identity. please help me. I've been working on it for months but still i can't do the proof.
the equation is too long so maybe it would be okay if I'd just give the link?
here it is:

http://ms.appliedprobability.org/data/files/feature articles/43-3-6.pdf

any help will be highly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd hate to have to do that proof, but I don't mind "discussing" it.

Your request is for an inductive proof of the pattern suggested by the equations:
[tex]x^1 + y^1 = (x+y)^1[/tex]
[tex]x^2 + y^2 = (x+y)^2 - 2 (xy)[/tex]
[tex]x^3 + y^3 = (x+y)^3 - 3(xy)(x+y)[/tex]
[tex]x^4 + y^4 = (x+4)^4 - 4(xy)(x+y)^2 + 2(xy)^2[/tex]
[tex]x^5 + y^5 = (x+y)^5 - 5(xy)(x+y)^3 + 5(xy)^2(x+y)[/tex]

Essentially it asks to prove the general formula for expanding [tex]x^n + y^n[/tex] in a (finite) power series in the variables [itex]\theta = x + y[/itex] and [itex]\alpha = xy[/itex].

The article says this is done by strong induction and messy algebra.

I notice that if you multiply one of the equations on both sides by [itex](x+y)[/itex] then it's right hand side has some resemblance to the right hand side of the next equation in the series. The left hand side becomes something that is expressible in terms of the previous equations. For example, left hand side of [itex]x^4 + y^4[/itex] becomes:

[tex](x+ y) (x^4 + y^4) = x^5 + y ^5 + yx^4 + xy^4 = x^5 + y^5 + (xy)(x^3 + y^3)[/tex]

So if you subtract the term [itex](xy)(x^3 + y^3)[/itex] from both sides and then employ the equation for [itex]x^3 + y^3[/itex], you should establish the equation for [itex]x^5 + y^5[/itex].
 
thank you sir!
that is the middle term of the expansion.
I'm almost done with the proof. i did the induction and it came up well..
my only problem now is on how to evaluate the first term inside the summation part.
is there a property of summation that says that when the upper limit is less than the lower limit, its value will be zero?
 
Sorry to meddle but, just as a side comment, wouldn't this Lockwood's identity be telling a bunch of relations among the entries in Pascal's triangle? For example, expand the binomials (x+y)^2 and (x+y)^4 to obtain[tex]x^2 + y^2 = (x+y)^2 - {2 \choose 1}xy[/tex]and[tex]\begin{align*}x^4 + y^4 &= (x+y)^4 - {4 \choose 1}x^3 y - {4 \choose 2}x^2 y^2 - {4 \choose 3}x y^3 \\<br /> &= (x+y)^4 - {4 \choose 1}xy(x^2+y^2) - {4 \choose 2}(xy)^2\end{align*}[/tex]and, after substituting the first into the second,[tex]\begin{align*}x^4 + y^4 &= (x+y)^4 - {4 \choose 1}xy \left((x+y)^2 - {2 \choose 1}xy \right) - {4 \choose 2}(xy)^2 \\<br /> &= (x+y)^4 - {4 \choose 1}xy (x+y)^2 + \left( {4 \choose 1}{2 \choose 1} - {4 \choose 2}\right) (xy)^2\end{align*}[/tex]whereas Lockwood's identity would give you[tex]x^4 + y^4 = (x+y)^4 - \left( {3 \choose 1} + {2 \choose 0} \right) xy (x+y)^2 + \left( {2 \choose 2} + {1 \choose 1} \right)(xy)^2[/tex]so[tex]\begin{align*} {4 \choose 1} &= {3 \choose 1} + {2 \choose 0} \\ {4 \choose 1}{2 \choose 1} - {4 \choose 2} &= {2 \choose 2} + {1 \choose 1} \end{align*}[/tex]and it doesn't appear like a coincidence; in fact it only gets more complicated with higher powers.
 
robimaru said:
is there a property of summation that says that when the upper limit is less than the lower limit, its value will be zero?

That is a common convention in summation notation, but if you are writing a proof, you can't justify a step because of a notational convention. If the indicated computation implies that there are no terms of a certain type to sum, you can point that out in words.
 
Dodo said:
wouldn't this Lockwood's identity be telling a bunch of relations among the entries in Pascal's triangle?

My guess is yes, since the article by Lockwood that is referenced in the link has a title mentioning Pascal's triangle. But I haven't read Lockwood's article.
 
aw the proof that we made seems wrong.
i'm afraid that we may fail the subject if we don't have the proof. i tried to contact the author of the article but he didn't respond.

using induction, x^n+ y^n=(x+y)^n+ ∑_(k=0)^⌊n/2⌋▒〖(-1)〗^k [((n-k)¦k) + ((n-k-1)¦(k-1)) ] (xy)^k (x+y)^(n-2k)
how can i prove that this holds for n+1.

having (x+y) be multiplied on both sides will give x^(n+1) + y^(n+1)
but it also produces a middle term x^(n+1)y+xy^(n+1).
 
but it also produces a middle term x^(n+1)y+xy^(n+1).
Of course it does and
[itex]x^{n+1} y + x y^{n+1} = (xy) ( x^n + y^n)[/itex], as illustrated by my example for the case n = 4.
 
yes but what am i going to do in the proof?
 
  • #10
I suggest you look at the example and perhaps do another one of your own. Then try to write the example symbolically using summation notation. How exactly did you get into the situation of having to prove this result if you don't have much experience in writing proofs by induction?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
831
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K