Is it possible to separate this expression into two expressions each missing one of the variables? $$\binom{m}{n+k} \overset{?}{=}f(m,k) \cdot g(m,n)$$

Edit: The operation can be $+$ as well, if that's possible.

  • $\begingroup$ Do you want it with proof? Do you mind division? $\endgroup$ – NoChance May 20 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ Division is fine as well; I just need to separate one of these outside a summation with other multiplicative terms. Proof would be nice :) If not, I can try proving it myself as well. $\endgroup$ – SS_C4 May 20 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ Identity #134 Page 67 here may help. books.google.com.eg/… $\endgroup$ – NoChance May 20 at 15:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The best I can think of is $$\binom{m}{n+k}=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \binom{i}{n}\binom{m-1-i}{k-1}.$$So I cannot quite separate $k$ from $n$, but I can write it as a sum of terms which are separated. For a proof, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/1938753/…. $\endgroup$ – Mike Earnest May 20 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ @NoChance, I don't quite see how it helps; could you show me? $\endgroup$ – SS_C4 May 20 at 16:52

No, it can't be done. Suppose

$$\binom{m}{n+k} = f(m,k) \cdot g(m,n)$$

Then $f(3,2) g(3,2) = 0$, but $f(3,2) g(3,1) = f(3,1) g(3,2) = 1$. QED

If the operation is changed to addition, we have a similar contradiction based on $m=3$, $(n, k) \in \{1,2\} \times \{1,2\}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Suppose the functions are only supposed to be defined when n+k <= m. I'm not very comfortable with having \binom(3,4) = 0. $\endgroup$ – SS_C4 May 21 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ How on Earth do you want $f(m,k)$ to only be defined when $n + k \le m$? It is, by design, independent of $n$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Taylor May 21 at 14:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.