Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'll probably end up asking more programming questions on StackExchange forums than math questions, but I'll lead off with a math question.

In my Number Theory class this past semester, I worked on a project on Bertrand's Postulate (aka Chebyshev Theorem) and came across this paper towards the end, but didn't have time to go through it.

I find it very fun (because it uses very neat objects called Newton polygons which I hadn't heard of before) so I've looked at it over break, and I'm guessing it would be pretty easy for most people here to understand (though I think it's advanced enough that I didn't put it under elementary-number-theory based on topics listed for that). So I was wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing it with me? There are some things in it which I don't quite understand, but I could also maybe explain some things to others here if any of you would like; and that would help me know whether I truly understand what I think I do.

Anyways, the areas where I'm confused are as follows:

On page 10, it says: "It is easy to see that there is no loss of generality in restricting to $a_j = 1$ for $0 \le j \le m$." Am I correct in my thinking that, because $|a_0| = |a_m| = 1$ is a condition of the lemma rather than a conclusion of it, this sort of generalization is acceptable? Which is also why it can later be stated that $b_j = m!/j!$, since it doesn't violate a restriction on $b_j$? I hope that my question is clear.

I'm a little fuzzy on the reasoning used in page 13 for why certain terms remain when deleting other terms. Like when $k = 3$, is it true that we can conclude that either $x$ or $x-1$ must be $3$ because otherwise those three consecutive terms contain a prime factor larger than $3$ (a special case of Theorem 2 which obviously would've had to come from different reasoning)? I think I'm missing something pretty obvious here, and I hope it doesn't have something to do with Bertrand's Postulate but I don't see how it would.

On page 14 (under "For this, we observe") it states that $_xC_k$ equals the product of all $p^a$ for which $p \le k$. I must be missing something here, because (for example) $_{22}C_{11}$ has 17 as a factor but $17 > 11$. I'm accounting for the fact that $x \ge 2k$ and $k \ge 11$. What else is there?

On page 16, how are $17 \le k \le 29$ excluded by (2)? Does that mean $_xC_k \ge _{4k}C_k$ fails to hold for all $x \ge 4k$ when $k$ is in that range? And how would such verification be performed without testing all of those $x$, which is impossible.

Finally, I wish either the proof of (b) or the proof of (c) would have been finished, as I'm thinking those are more similar than they are to the proof of (a). I don't see how to finish (c) in a manner similar to (a), especially since I don't see another formula (besides the one at the end) relating $_xC_k$ to an expression in only $x$ the way it was related to an expression in only k for proving (a).

If anyone could address any of these points, I would really appreciate it. Have a nice day! :)

share|cite|improve this question
In recent times, it is increasingly standard to denote binomial coefficients by $\binom{n}{k}$ instead of $_nC_k$. Would you mind if we make this change in the question? – Srivatsan Jan 7 '12 at 22:56
Not at all. And thank you to Michael for making that change, as well as the others in formatting. – Gregory Fowler Jan 8 '12 at 5:57

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.