Timeline for Alternative proofs sought after for a certain identity
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nov 2, 2021 at 16:32 | history | edited | Ira Gessel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
Dec 21, 2020 at 19:44 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine : I agree with your comment. | |
Dec 21, 2020 at 16:16 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | @IosifPinelis: I’d agree, in some sense this is essentially the same as the OP’s induction proof. But at the same time, this presentation is clearer and more informative in several ways — e.g. this version points the way more clearly to combinatorial/probabilistic interpretations such as that in Fedor Petrov’s answer. | |
Dec 18, 2020 at 21:07 | comment | added | LSpice |
MathJax note: multi-line-equation AMS environments like {align*} work here, and display better than a collection of inline equations separated by blank lines. I have edited accordingly.
|
|
Dec 18, 2020 at 21:06 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
{align*}
|
Dec 18, 2020 at 18:51 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | To me, this looks like a concise way to rewrite the induction proof in the OP. In particular, the last equality in your display is essentially the same as the identity $\binom nj-\binom{n-1}j=\binom{n-1}{j-1}$, used in the beginning of the induction proof, whereas your first equality is essentially what was used at the end of the the induction proof. | |
Dec 18, 2020 at 18:19 | history | edited | Alapan Das | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
Dec 18, 2020 at 18:13 | history | answered | Alapan Das | CC BY-SA 4.0 |