Identity involving binomial coefficients: $sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j}{i-j}binom mj=sum_{j=0}^i...
Can you help me prove the following identity? I know it holds because I simulated it.
For positive integers $n,m,k$ and for $i=0,ldots,n$ and for $n leq m$ we have:
$$sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j} {i-j} binom {m}{j} = sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j+k} {i-j} binom {m+k}{j}$$
discrete-mathematics summation binomial-coefficients
add a comment |
Can you help me prove the following identity? I know it holds because I simulated it.
For positive integers $n,m,k$ and for $i=0,ldots,n$ and for $n leq m$ we have:
$$sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j} {i-j} binom {m}{j} = sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j+k} {i-j} binom {m+k}{j}$$
discrete-mathematics summation binomial-coefficients
Both sides equal $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i}$. To prove this, use upper negation to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i-j}$, and to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j+k}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n+k-1}{i-j}$. Then, simplify both sides using Chu-Vandermonde convolution.
– darij grinberg
Jan 4 at 20:24
add a comment |
Can you help me prove the following identity? I know it holds because I simulated it.
For positive integers $n,m,k$ and for $i=0,ldots,n$ and for $n leq m$ we have:
$$sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j} {i-j} binom {m}{j} = sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j+k} {i-j} binom {m+k}{j}$$
discrete-mathematics summation binomial-coefficients
Can you help me prove the following identity? I know it holds because I simulated it.
For positive integers $n,m,k$ and for $i=0,ldots,n$ and for $n leq m$ we have:
$$sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j} {i-j} binom {m}{j} = sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{i+j}binom {n-j+k} {i-j} binom {m+k}{j}$$
discrete-mathematics summation binomial-coefficients
discrete-mathematics summation binomial-coefficients
edited Aug 8 '16 at 7:48
Martin Sleziak
44.6k8115271
44.6k8115271
asked Mar 18 '14 at 20:28
biancabianca
62
62
Both sides equal $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i}$. To prove this, use upper negation to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i-j}$, and to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j+k}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n+k-1}{i-j}$. Then, simplify both sides using Chu-Vandermonde convolution.
– darij grinberg
Jan 4 at 20:24
add a comment |
Both sides equal $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i}$. To prove this, use upper negation to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i-j}$, and to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j+k}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n+k-1}{i-j}$. Then, simplify both sides using Chu-Vandermonde convolution.
– darij grinberg
Jan 4 at 20:24
Both sides equal $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i}$. To prove this, use upper negation to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i-j}$, and to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j+k}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n+k-1}{i-j}$. Then, simplify both sides using Chu-Vandermonde convolution.
– darij grinberg
Jan 4 at 20:24
Both sides equal $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i}$. To prove this, use upper negation to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i-j}$, and to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j+k}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n+k-1}{i-j}$. Then, simplify both sides using Chu-Vandermonde convolution.
– darij grinberg
Jan 4 at 20:24
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This can be done using a basic complex variables technique.
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $q=m$ and $nle m.$
Introduce the two integral representations
$${n-jchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz$$
and
$${n-j+kchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz$$
This gives the following integral for the sum on the LHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz.$$
We get the following integral for the sum on the RHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
-sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j}
right) dz.$$
There are two pieces here inside the parentheses, call them $A$ and $B$.
For $A$ we get
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz$$
This is the same as the LHS. Now we just need to show that piece $B$
is zero. It is given by
$$- frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz.$$
But we have $jge m+1 = q+1$ so the apparent pole at zero vanishes and
this term is analytic in and on the circle $|z|=epsilon$ with no poles
inside it and piece $B$ is indeed zero.
We can stop here without further evaluation because the integrals for
LHS and RHS are seen to be the same. Moreover, they are trivial to evaluate,
we get $$(-1)^m times {2m-n-1choose m-n-1}.$$
The reader is invited to supply a proof for the case $q<m.$
A trace as to when this method appeared on MSE and by whom starts at this
MSE link.
add a comment |
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $qle m$, $nle m$ and $kge 0.$
We have by formal power series on the LHS
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}.$$
Now we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no contribution to
the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] (1+z)^n sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^n left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
Since we have $nle m$ we write this as
$$[z^q] frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} = (-1)^q {m-n-1+qchoose m-n-1}.$$
Continuing with the RHS we get
$$sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}.$$
Once more we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no
contribution to the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
This is the same as the LHS and we have the nice result that the RHS
does not depend on $k.$ Having seen this we observe that it suffices
to evaluate the RHS, with the LHS being the special case $k=0.$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f717228%2fidentity-involving-binomial-coefficients-sum-j-0i-1ij-binom-n-ji%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This can be done using a basic complex variables technique.
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $q=m$ and $nle m.$
Introduce the two integral representations
$${n-jchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz$$
and
$${n-j+kchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz$$
This gives the following integral for the sum on the LHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz.$$
We get the following integral for the sum on the RHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
-sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j}
right) dz.$$
There are two pieces here inside the parentheses, call them $A$ and $B$.
For $A$ we get
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz$$
This is the same as the LHS. Now we just need to show that piece $B$
is zero. It is given by
$$- frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz.$$
But we have $jge m+1 = q+1$ so the apparent pole at zero vanishes and
this term is analytic in and on the circle $|z|=epsilon$ with no poles
inside it and piece $B$ is indeed zero.
We can stop here without further evaluation because the integrals for
LHS and RHS are seen to be the same. Moreover, they are trivial to evaluate,
we get $$(-1)^m times {2m-n-1choose m-n-1}.$$
The reader is invited to supply a proof for the case $q<m.$
A trace as to when this method appeared on MSE and by whom starts at this
MSE link.
add a comment |
This can be done using a basic complex variables technique.
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $q=m$ and $nle m.$
Introduce the two integral representations
$${n-jchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz$$
and
$${n-j+kchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz$$
This gives the following integral for the sum on the LHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz.$$
We get the following integral for the sum on the RHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
-sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j}
right) dz.$$
There are two pieces here inside the parentheses, call them $A$ and $B$.
For $A$ we get
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz$$
This is the same as the LHS. Now we just need to show that piece $B$
is zero. It is given by
$$- frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz.$$
But we have $jge m+1 = q+1$ so the apparent pole at zero vanishes and
this term is analytic in and on the circle $|z|=epsilon$ with no poles
inside it and piece $B$ is indeed zero.
We can stop here without further evaluation because the integrals for
LHS and RHS are seen to be the same. Moreover, they are trivial to evaluate,
we get $$(-1)^m times {2m-n-1choose m-n-1}.$$
The reader is invited to supply a proof for the case $q<m.$
A trace as to when this method appeared on MSE and by whom starts at this
MSE link.
add a comment |
This can be done using a basic complex variables technique.
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $q=m$ and $nle m.$
Introduce the two integral representations
$${n-jchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz$$
and
$${n-j+kchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz$$
This gives the following integral for the sum on the LHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz.$$
We get the following integral for the sum on the RHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
-sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j}
right) dz.$$
There are two pieces here inside the parentheses, call them $A$ and $B$.
For $A$ we get
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz$$
This is the same as the LHS. Now we just need to show that piece $B$
is zero. It is given by
$$- frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz.$$
But we have $jge m+1 = q+1$ so the apparent pole at zero vanishes and
this term is analytic in and on the circle $|z|=epsilon$ with no poles
inside it and piece $B$ is indeed zero.
We can stop here without further evaluation because the integrals for
LHS and RHS are seen to be the same. Moreover, they are trivial to evaluate,
we get $$(-1)^m times {2m-n-1choose m-n-1}.$$
The reader is invited to supply a proof for the case $q<m.$
A trace as to when this method appeared on MSE and by whom starts at this
MSE link.
This can be done using a basic complex variables technique.
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $q=m$ and $nle m.$
Introduce the two integral representations
$${n-jchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz$$
and
$${n-j+kchoose q-j}
= frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz$$
This gives the following integral for the sum on the LHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {mchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{(1+z)^n}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz.$$
We get the following integral for the sum on the RHS
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{1}{z^{q-j+1}} (1+z)^{n-j+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=0}^m {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
-sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j}
right) dz.$$
There are two pieces here inside the parentheses, call them $A$ and $B$.
For $A$ we get
$$frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k} ; dz
\ = frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{1}{z^{q+1}}
frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} ; dz$$
This is the same as the LHS. Now we just need to show that piece $B$
is zero. It is given by
$$- frac{1}{2pi i}
int_{|z|=epsilon} frac{(1+z)^{n+k}}{z^{q+1}}
sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k}
{m+kchoose j} (-1)^j
frac{z^j}{(1+z)^j} ; dz.$$
But we have $jge m+1 = q+1$ so the apparent pole at zero vanishes and
this term is analytic in and on the circle $|z|=epsilon$ with no poles
inside it and piece $B$ is indeed zero.
We can stop here without further evaluation because the integrals for
LHS and RHS are seen to be the same. Moreover, they are trivial to evaluate,
we get $$(-1)^m times {2m-n-1choose m-n-1}.$$
The reader is invited to supply a proof for the case $q<m.$
A trace as to when this method appeared on MSE and by whom starts at this
MSE link.
edited Jan 4 at 18:01
answered Aug 26 '14 at 22:21
Marko RiedelMarko Riedel
39.4k339107
39.4k339107
add a comment |
add a comment |
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $qle m$, $nle m$ and $kge 0.$
We have by formal power series on the LHS
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}.$$
Now we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no contribution to
the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] (1+z)^n sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^n left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
Since we have $nle m$ we write this as
$$[z^q] frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} = (-1)^q {m-n-1+qchoose m-n-1}.$$
Continuing with the RHS we get
$$sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}.$$
Once more we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no
contribution to the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
This is the same as the LHS and we have the nice result that the RHS
does not depend on $k.$ Having seen this we observe that it suffices
to evaluate the RHS, with the LHS being the special case $k=0.$
add a comment |
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $qle m$, $nle m$ and $kge 0.$
We have by formal power series on the LHS
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}.$$
Now we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no contribution to
the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] (1+z)^n sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^n left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
Since we have $nle m$ we write this as
$$[z^q] frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} = (-1)^q {m-n-1+qchoose m-n-1}.$$
Continuing with the RHS we get
$$sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}.$$
Once more we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no
contribution to the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
This is the same as the LHS and we have the nice result that the RHS
does not depend on $k.$ Having seen this we observe that it suffices
to evaluate the RHS, with the LHS being the special case $k=0.$
add a comment |
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $qle m$, $nle m$ and $kge 0.$
We have by formal power series on the LHS
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}.$$
Now we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no contribution to
the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] (1+z)^n sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^n left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
Since we have $nle m$ we write this as
$$[z^q] frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} = (-1)^q {m-n-1+qchoose m-n-1}.$$
Continuing with the RHS we get
$$sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}.$$
Once more we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no
contribution to the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
This is the same as the LHS and we have the nice result that the RHS
does not depend on $k.$ Having seen this we observe that it suffices
to evaluate the RHS, with the LHS being the special case $k=0.$
Suppose we seek to verify that
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j {n-jchoose q-j}
= sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j {n-j+kchoose q-j} .$$
We will treat the case $qle m$, $nle m$ and $kge 0.$
We have by formal power series on the LHS
$$sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}.$$
Now we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no contribution to
the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j}
= [z^q] (1+z)^n sum_{jge 0} {mchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^n left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^m
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
Since we have $nle m$ we write this as
$$[z^q] frac{1}{(1+z)^{m-n}} = (-1)^q {m-n-1+qchoose m-n-1}.$$
Continuing with the RHS we get
$$sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j [z^{q-j}] (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] sum_{j=0}^q {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}.$$
Once more we may extend $j$ beyond $q$ because there is no
contribution to the coefficient extractor in front:
$$[z^q] sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{n-j+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} sum_{jge 0} {m+kchoose j} (-1)^j z^j (1+z)^{-j}
\ = [z^q] (1+z)^{n+k} left(1-frac{z}{1+z}right)^{m+k}
= [z^q] (1+z)^{n-m}.$$
This is the same as the LHS and we have the nice result that the RHS
does not depend on $k.$ Having seen this we observe that it suffices
to evaluate the RHS, with the LHS being the special case $k=0.$
answered Jan 4 at 18:32
Marko RiedelMarko Riedel
39.4k339107
39.4k339107
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f717228%2fidentity-involving-binomial-coefficients-sum-j-0i-1ij-binom-n-ji%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Both sides equal $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i}$. To prove this, use upper negation to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n-1}{i-j}$, and to rewrite $left(-1right)^{i+j} dbinom{n-j+k}{i-j}$ as $dbinom{i+m-n+k-1}{i-j}$. Then, simplify both sides using Chu-Vandermonde convolution.
– darij grinberg
Jan 4 at 20:24