One polynomial does more work in this volume than any
other: .
In analysis it bounds powers from below, and Section 1.4
makes large by
keeping a single term of its expansion. In algebra it is
the source of Fermat’s little theorem, which Chapter 4
proves by expanding in a field with elements. Both uses
need the same theorem, so this section proves it once,
in every commutative ring. The coefficients are defined
by Pascal’s rule and never by division, which keeps the
theorem valid in rings where is . The school formula
with factorials comes afterwards, as an identity between
natural numbers that may then be read in .
Binomial
coefficients
Start with numbers you know. In school algebra, , with coefficients . Multiply by
: Each new coefficient is the sum of two
neighboring coefficients of the row before.
In ,
each product appears a certain number of times, and
that number is the binomial coefficient. We define it by
this rule of adding neighbors, Pascal’s rule, and we
never divide.
Definition
1.2.1 (Binomial Coefficients)
The binomial coefficients , for
, are
defined by recursion on (Sets and Functions, Theorem 3.3.1,
with the set of
functions ):
In words: row starts with , and each later entry
is the sum of the two entries of row above it
(Pascal’s rule). Each row is a whole
function , so the recursion has values for every
, and a
coefficient is a natural number, never a quotient.
Three facts follow by one induction on each.
- for . For this is the definition. If it holds for and , write with ; then .
- . Indeed , and
by the
first fact.
- . Indeed , and
.
The rows , with the zeros for shown:
| 0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 4 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| 5 |
1 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
| 6 |
1 |
6 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
6 |
1 |
The identity we need relates row to row by a factor. It is what
makes a prime divide the middle coefficients of row
.
Proposition
1.2.1 (Absorption Identity)
For all ,
Idea. The definition is a recursion
on , so we induct
on , proving the
statement for all at once; the step then
needs the hypothesis at two values of . In the step, expand
the left side by Pascal’s rule, split the factor as in front of
one of the two terms, apply the hypothesis twice, and
recombine with Pascal’s rule. For , it reads ;
for , , .
Proof. We prove by induction on
(Logic and Proof, Axiom 4.2.1)
the statement “for every , ”.
Base . For : . For
: since
, and
;
both sides are .
Step. Suppose the statement holds for . For , the claim for
reads , and both sides are by the facts above.
For with
, Pascal’s
rule gives where the third line uses the hypothesis at
and at , and the fourth
line Pascal’s rule again. This is the claim for at . This proves
the proposition.
Binomial
coefficients and factorials
School defines as ,
with the factorial of Sets and Functions, Definition 3.3.1.
The recursive definition and the school formula agree,
and absorption is what shows it. We prove the agreement
as an identity between natural numbers, with no division
in it, and divide only at the end, in .
Proposition
1.2.2 (Binomial Coefficients and
Factorials)
Let
with .
- (a) .
- (b) .
- (c) .
Hence, in ,
.
In words: the table above is the table of
the school formula, it is symmetric about the middle of
each row, and is the product of the numbers .
Idea. Induct on , for all at once, as in
the absorption identity. In the step, write ;
absorption trades the factor and the row for a factor and the row , and the hypothesis
turns what is left into . Parts (b) and (c)
then compare two products equal to and cancel a common
factor, which is legal in because a product of
non-zero integers is non-zero.
Proof. We prove (a) by induction on
(Logic and Proof, Axiom 4.2.1),
for every
at once. For
the only is , and .
Suppose (a) holds for , and let . If , the left side is
. Otherwise with , and . By the factorial recursion ,
then Proposition 1.2.1,
then the hypothesis at , and by the factorial recursion. This
proves (a) for . Parts (b) and (c) follow from (a) by
cancelling a positive integer factor in .
For the formula in , read each natural
number as the
real number (Number Systems: From to , Definition 4.2.1).
By Number Systems: From to , Proposition 4.2.1
(a), the products in (a) are the same products in , and by (b) there,
. Dividing (a) by this positive real gives the
formula. This proves the proposition.
↺Second readingProofs
of (b) and (c): cancelling in the
integers
Proof of (b). Let , a positive integer, so . By (a) at , .
Since
and , (a) at gives , that is, .
Subtracting in ,
. A product of two
integers is only
if one factor is ,
and . So
.
Proof of (c). First, for every , by induction on . For the product is
empty, equal to ,
and both sides are . If the claim holds
for and , then , so the
factorial recursion gives , and the
product recursion appends the factor : Now (a) and this claim give . The factor
is a
positive integer, so it cancels as did in (b). This proves
(c).
The formula is a fact about natural numbers, and in
the division by
is
legal because the divisor is a positive real. Chapter 4
works in a field with elements. There is , and so is the divisor
as
soon as or
. For
those and the formula cannot be
written in that field, while the definition by Pascal’s
rule makes sense for every and .
The
binomial theorem
Expanding multiplies out factors and collects the
products . For , in any ring, If , the two middle terms collect to ,
and the coefficients are , row of the table. In a
commutative ring this collecting always works, and the
counts are the binomial coefficients, acting as natural
multiples.
Theorem
1.2.3 (The Binomial Theorem in a Commutative
Ring)
Let be a
commutative ring, and . Then
Here is the natural multiple of Lemma 1.1.2
(in , the
product ), and since .
Idea. Induct on , with . Multiplying the sum for by raises every power of
by one, which
shifts the coefficients one place to the right;
multiplying by
leaves them in place. Adding the two rows entry by entry
is exactly Pascal’s rule. The work is in lining the two
sums up over the same range : the
shifted sum gets a zero first term, and the other one a
zero last term.
Before reading on: explain to yourself why the
last term of the unshifted sum, at , is .
Proof. Induction on (Logic and Proof, Axiom 4.2.1).
For , and the
right side is .
Suppose the formula holds for , and put for . The first equality below is the
power recursion and the distributive law, (F9). The
second is the induction hypothesis, with and multiplied into the sum
term by term; this uses commutativity of multiplication,
(F6). The rule brings and inside the natural
multiple (Lemma 1.1.2
(c)). Associativity of multiplication, (F5),
commutativity and the power recursion then regroup the
powers: For let , and define Then and for , and , since .
Splitting off the first term of one sum and
the last term of the other gives So by Lemma 1.1.3
(a). Finally, . For
with
, the
sum rule and Pascal’s
rule give Hence , which is the formula for . This proves the
theorem.
The proof used commutativity, (F6), at every
regrouping of , and the theorem needs it. The linear-algebra
volumes meet matrices, whose multiplication is not
commutative. For matrices the expansion can fail for
pairs that do not commute, already at . For the theorem is
the familiar expansion, since there (Lemma 1.1.2
(e)). The same holds in , where is the real
number . From here
on we read the theorem in this way.
↺Second readingWhat
goes wrong without commutativity
Keep every clause of a commutative ring except
commutativity of multiplication, (F6), together with the
distributive law on the other side, , which
(F6) used to supply. Then the theorem fails already at
. Expanding by
the two distributive laws gives , and the theorem’s middle term
agrees with
exactly when . The real matrices live in a system with all of these laws under
the usual matrix operations. Here , while
is the
identity matrix and has entries . Everything else in the proof survives:
Pascal’s rule, the sum rules and the bookkeeping with
and . Only the regrouping
breaks, and this is why the statement
asks for a commutative ring.
Example
(Three expansions)
- (a) Expand in . (b) Expand in . (c) Compute from row of the table.
Solution.
(a) The theorem
with and row
, , gives,
from down to
,
(b) Take in the theorem.
The term with index is , and is for and for , since and Sets and Functions, Proposition 3.3.4
(a), (b) give and . With row , ,
(c) Write and take
, : The digits of are row , because every
coefficient of that row is below and no carrying
occurs.
Quick check. Write row from row by Pascal’s rule, and
check
by the formula of Proposition 1.2.2.
Solution. Row is ,
so row is (for instance ). By the formula, .
Warning. The rule is
false in for
every : with
it would
give , while
for (Sets and Functions, Proposition 3.3.4
(e)); at ,
. The theorem says what is missing: the middle
terms with . Chapter 4 shows that those middle
terms all vanish for in every field of characteristic , a prime.
Consequences in the real numbers
In the
theorem gives exact sums of binomial coefficients. For
it also
gives lower bounds for : every term of the expansion is then
non-negative, and a sum of non-negative terms is at
least any part of it. These lower bounds are what
Section 1.4 needs.
Corollary
1.2.4 (Binomial Sums and Lower Bounds)
Let .
- (a) , and if .
- (b) If , and , then .
- (c) If , and , then .
Proof. We apply Theorem 1.2.3
in .
- (a) With , every is , since for every , so . With and , , and for
, . So
.
(b), (c) With , . For each term is
. Indeed is a
natural number. Also : for a power of a positive number is positive, and
for , is or . A product of two
non-negative numbers is non-negative. By Proposition 1.1.5
(b), the sum is at least its single term , which is (b). By
the same part with , it is at least the sum of its terms , which is
. Finally, by the
third fact after Definition 1.2.1.
By Proposition 1.2.2
(c) with ,
, so . This proves (c).
For ,
keeping only the first two terms gives for
, by Proposition 1.1.5
(b) with .
Sets and Functions proved this as Bernoulli’s
inequality (Sets and Functions, Theorem 3.3.7),
and here we recover it on that range. Bernoulli’s
inequality also covers , and the expansion cannot reach
that range: for the terms
alternate in sign, and dropping some of them may raise
the sum instead of lowering it.
Quick check. With and , which gives the best lower
bound for from
(b)?
Solution. The bound is , which
for is . The best choices are and , both giving . A
single term loses a lot; Section 1.4 only ever needs a
bound that grows fast enough, not a sharp one.
Example
(A lower bound for powers of two)
Show that , and hence , for every integer .
Solution. Let . By Corollary 1.2.4
(b) with and
, . Both sides are positive
(),
so Number Systems: From to , Proposition 4.1.2
(c) inverts the inequality: . Multiplying by gives . For instance, at : .
The right side can be made as small as we like by taking
large, and
Section 1.4 turns this into the limit .
Example
(An absorbed sum)
Compute in two ways: term by term, and by
absorption.
Solution. Term by term, with row
: .
By absorption: shift the index by (Sets and Functions, Definition 3.3.1),
so the sum is . Proposition 1.2.1
with gives
. The constant comes out of the sum by
Lemma 1.1.3
(b). The row sum Corollary 1.2.4
(a) for then
gives
The second computation never uses the entries of row
: absorption turns
the factor into
the constant , and
what is left is all of row , whose sum is .
Exercises
A. Check your
understanding
Exercise
(A1)
- (a) In the proof of
Theorem 1.2.3,
why is put in, and where is it used?
- (b) Where does the
proof use commutativity of multiplication, (F6)?
- (c) Run the
induction step from to : list and , and add them.
- (d) True or false:
for all with . Give the
reason.
Solution.
(a) The sum is
, which starts at index . Putting in turns it into
by Lemma 1.1.3
(f) (split off the first term, which is ). That is a sum over
the same range as , so the two can be added termwise by Lemma 1.1.3
(a).
(b) In computing
: the product
becomes only after is moved past , which is
commutativity, (F6). It is also used to bring the factor
(and ) to the left of the
sum, where Lemma 1.1.3
(b) has it. The first use is the one the theorem cannot
do without: for matrices that do not commute, , and .
(c) For , . Then
, , ; and , , . The sum is , with coefficients , row .
(d) True, by Proposition 1.2.2
(b). Each row of the table reads the same from both
ends.
B. Practice
Exercise
(B1: Expansions)
- (a) Write , for , as a sum of
six terms. What multiplies ? (b) Compute for .
Solution.
(a) Since (Sets and Functions, Proposition 3.3.4
(c)), the theorem with in place of and gives Term by term, with row and , this
is . The term with
is , so multiplies .
(b) By the
theorem with
and , the sum
is .
Check : .
Exercise
(B2: An absorbed sum)
Show that for every integer
.
Hint: absorption.
Solution. Let . Shift the index
by (Sets and Functions, Definition 3.3.1):
the sum is . By Proposition 1.2.1
with
in place of ,
. Taking the constant out of the sum and
using the row sum Corollary 1.2.4
(a) for ,
Check : .
Exercise
(B3: A numerical lower bound)
Show that without multiplying out the power.
Solution. Apply Corollary 1.2.4
(c) with and : , and
C. Going deeper
Exercise
(C1: Chapter check: absorption twice)
Prove that, in , for every
integer .
Solution. Let , and write . The terms and are , so by Proposition 1.1.4
(b) with ,
Let . By Proposition 1.2.1
with in place
of and in place of (both in , as ), . Applied again with and (in , as ), . Hence Shifting the index by , taking the
constant
out of the sum and using the row sum Corollary 1.2.4
(a) for ,
Check : .
What a complete answer needs. (10
points) - 2: the terms are shown to be and split off, with the
splitting rule cited. - 3: the first absorption, , with its range stated. - 3: the
second absorption, ,
with its range ,
stated. - 2: the index shift and the row sum Corollary 1.2.4
(a) for . A
route through Proposition 1.2.2
(c) earns the absorption points for the equivalent
identity ,
proved for .
An induction on
from , with
Pascal’s rule and Exercise (B2: An absorbed sum),
also earns full marks. It scores 3 for the base case and
the set-up, 4 for the Pascal split , where is the sum, and 3
for the algebra with B2.
Slips that lose the step. Applying
absorption at , where it would need , earns 0
for that step.