1

Proof of the Binomial Theorem

posted in Off Topic
Comments:
Threaded Linear
#1
Dolphin

Since you guys seem to be fans of the binomial theorem, I cooked up the proof using mathematical induction for you guys

Proof of the Binomial Theorem:

Step 1: Base Case
For n = 1, the binomial theorem states:
(x + y)^1 = C(1, 0) x^1 y^0 + C(1, 1) x^0 y^1
which simplifies to:
x + y = x + y
This confirms that the base case holds true.

Step 2: Inductive Hypothesis
Assume that the binomial theorem holds true for some positive integer k:
(x + y)^k = C(k, 0) x^k y^0 + C(k, 1) x^(k-1) y^1 + C(k, 2) x^(k-2) y^2 + ... + C(k, k-1) x^1 y^(k-1) + C(k, k) x^0 y^k

Step 3: Inductive Step
We need to prove that the binomial theorem also holds true for k + 1. So, let's consider (x + y)^(k+1):
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y) * (x + y)^k

Using the distributive property, we can expand this as:
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y) (C(k, 0) x^k y^0 + C(k, 1) x^(k-1) y^1 + C(k, 2) x^(k-2) y^2 + ... + C(k, k-1) x^1 y^(k-1) + C(k, k) x^0 * y^k)

Expanding further and simplifying, we get:
(x + y)^(k+1) = C(k, 0) x^(k+1) y^0 + C(k, 1) x^k y^1 + C(k, 2) x^(k-1) y^2 + ... + C(k, k-1) x^2 y^(k-1) + C(k, k) x^1 y^k

  • C(k, 0) x^k y^1 + C(k, 1) x^(k-1) y^2 + C(k, 2) x^(k-2) y^3 + ... + C(k, k-1) x^0 y^k + C(k, k) x^0 y^(k+1)

Using the binomial coefficient identity C(n, r) + C(n, r+1) = C(n+1, r+1), we can simplify the expression further:
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y)^k + C(k, 0) x^k y^1 + C(k, 1) x^(k-1) y^2 + C(k, 2) x^(k-2) y^3 + ... + C(k, k-1) x^0 y^k + C(k, k) x^0 y^(k+1)

This can be rewritten as:
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y)^k + [C(k, 0) x^k y^1 + C(k, 1) x^(k-1) y^2 + C(k, 2) x^(k-2) y^3 + ... + C(k, k-1) x^0 y^k] + C(k, k) x^0 y^(k+1)

Notice that the term in the brackets matches the binomial theorem for k, so we can rewrite it as (x + y)^k. This simplifies the expression to:
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y)^k + (x + y) C(k, k) x^0 * y^(k+1)

Simplifying further, we have:
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y)^k + C(k+1, k+1) x^0 y^(k+1)

Since C(k+1, k+1) = 1, the expression becomes:
(x + y)^(k+1) = (x + y)^k + x^0 * y^(k+1)

This confirms that the binomial theorem holds true for k + 1.

Step 4: Conclusion
Since the base case holds true, and assuming that the theorem holds for k implies it holds for k + 1, we can conclude that the binomial theorem holds true for all positive integers.

Here is the link to the Pythagorean Theorem proof if you want to see more

#2
Qwertyy
9
Frags
+

how does this affect lebron's legacy

#3
sm42
4
Frags
+

Agreed, Sentinels clears

#4
frappzlul
2
Frags
+

alpha is equal to beta

#5
Manaphy
2
Frags
+

Anne's Theorem Clears🗿

#7
Dolphin
0
Frags
+

bro.

#6
Subreezy
2
Frags
+

i've had to prove this before and this checks out, well done

#8
gamr
0
Frags
+

allat

#9
widepeepofrosty
1
Frags
+

too much letters and numbers, brain not working! o(╥﹏╥)o

do u learn this in ap calc? ^_^ im dropping that class next year

#10
Cresp
0
Frags
+

Hi dolphin can you show me how to integrate improper rational functions!!!? Thank you!

#15
Dolphin
0
Frags
+

sorry mr cresp, im not that advanced, yet

#17
Cresp
0
Frags
+

😡😡😡😡

#20
widepeepofrosty
0
Frags
+

cresp doesnt even know how to integrate improper rational functions?!? noob lol ( ̄。 ̄)~zzz

#21
Cresp
0
Frags
+

Hacker shut up

#23
widepeepofrosty
0
Frags
+

watch ur mouth lil man 😡

#11
bigboy
0
Frags
+

ok. now prove how my balls are in your mouth right now.

#13
Dolphin
0
Frags
+

It is with utmost discernment that I present the notion that certain propositions, positioned amidst the tapestry of human understanding, are irrefutably beyond the confines of proof, owing not to their inherent enigmatic nature, but rather due to their intrinsic falsehood. These propositions, draped in a veneer of allure, masquerade as subjects worthy of profound inquiry, yet remain resolutely untethered from the realm of truth.

In this intricate dance of intellectual discourse, we encounter propositions that, upon meticulous examination, reveal themselves to be at odds with the bedrock of veracity. Through the discerning lens of logical scrutiny and empirical scrutiny, their foundations crumble, their coherence dissipates, and their inherent falsehood is laid bare.

Thus, it is incumbent upon us to recognize that amidst the vast landscape of propositions, there exist those that, like elusive phantoms, seek to seduce our intellectual faculties. However, armed with the discerning light of reason, we uncover their intrinsic fallacy, rendering them impervious to the realm of proof, for their very essence is constructed upon a foundation of untruth.

#12
annoybrocc02
0
Frags
+

ok now prove it without using induction

#14
Lqwnmower
0
Frags
+

explain in valorant terms

#19
Dolphin
0
Frags
+

the theorem is meta, it works in one map, and now works in all maps

#16
GeorgeSantos
0
Frags
+

Did you just learn about this in school and wanted to flex somewhere?

#18
Dolphin
0
Frags
+

no, im on vacations rn

#22
GeorgeSantos
0
Frags
+

Oh nice just thought it was super random

  • Preview
  • Edit
› check that that your post follows the forum rules and guidelines or get formatting help
Sign up or log in to post a comment