You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Binomial Question (Show that) watch

Announcements
1. Show that

Right, here's my working out so far, not sure what to do from here though:

Not really sure of the correct syntax for that last step I typed out, but that's basically as far as I can get. I can see a pattern obviously involving 2s, but that's about it :P .
2. (Original post by ViralRiver)
Show that

Right, here's my working out so far, not sure what to do from here though:

Not really sure of the correct syntax for that last step I typed out, but that's basically as far as I can get. I can see a pattern obviously involving 2s, but that's about it :P .
Induction.

You may want to use the result (which is easily shown)
3. Thanks, one other question. How can you expand work out 1.005^7 to 3dp without a calculator? I've expanded it as (1+0.005)^7 but still seems a bit hard mentally.
4. (Original post by ViralRiver)
Thanks, one other question. How can you expand work out 1.005^7 to 3dp without a calculator? I've expanded it as (1+0.005)^7 but still seems a bit hard mentally.
That seems like the neatest way to do it. Notice that you only need to expand up to the term involving 0.005^3 as the other terms won't affect the 3rd decimal place.
5. Regarding the original question.

If you're allowed to assume the binomial expansion of , then just set x=y=1.
6. (Original post by ghostwalker)
Regarding the original question.

If you're allowed to assume the binomial expansion of , then just set x=y=1.
I thought this but I expected it would make the problem a little too trivial? Felt a little circular.
7. Not sure what you mean by that, ghostwalker?
8. (Original post by ViralRiver)
Not sure what you mean by that, ghostwalker?
The required expression is just the binomial expansion of
9. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
I thought this but I expected it would make the problem a little too trivial? Felt a little circular.
It's certainly not circular, since the binomial theorem doesn't rely on the result ; and (like many things) it only makes the problem trivial if you spot the trick. Induction's always a safe approach, but the binomial theorem's a much more illustrative approach.
10. Binomial coefficients count stuff right? So we'd like to interpret that sum as counting something.

Remember that nCm is the number of ways to choose m elements from a set of n, so if we sum over m we are effectively saying 'how many subsets of a set of size n are there' (because we add the number of sets of size 0, the number of sets of size 1, etc etc).

We can also think about specifying the elements of a subset by lining up the elements of the set of size n and then either writing 1 or 0 underneath each element, to show whether they're in our subset of not. So it should be pretty clear that each element can either be or not be in our set, and hence there are 2^n subsets.
11. (Original post by nuodai)
It's certainly not circular, since the binomial theorem doesn't rely on the result ; and (like many things) it only makes the problem trivial if you spot the trick. Induction's always a safe approach, but the binomial theorem's a much more illustrative approach.
I don't think I've used the correct word to describe what I meant here but surely you can't just assume the theorem when the proposition is just a special case of that very theorem? (I may be over complicating things...)
12. STEP I 2010? Nice paper.

(Original post by around)
Binomial coefficients count stuff right? So we'd like to interpret that sum as counting something.

Remember that nCm is the number of ways to choose m elements from a set of n, so if we sum over m we are effectively saying 'how many subsets of a set of size n are there' (because we add the number of sets of size 0, the number of sets of size 1, etc etc).

We can also think about specifying the elements of a subset by lining up the elements of the set of size n and then either writing 1 or 0 underneath each element, to show whether they're in our subset of not. So it should be pretty clear that each element can either be or not be in our set, and hence there are 2^n subsets.
Very nice, I was thinking about the power set thing but your whole binary tree thing was a beautiful touch. +repped.
13. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
I don't think I've used the correct word to describe what I meant here but surely you can't just assume the theorem when the proposition is just a special case of that very theorem? (I may be over complicating things...)
There's a certain logic to what you say, but unless you're told otherwise, I think you're pretty safe assuming the binomial theorem in a question.
14. (Original post by DFranklin)
There's a certain logic to what you say, but unless you're told otherwise, I think you're pretty safe assuming the binomial theorem in a question.
It is in the formula booklet, after all.
15. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
I don't think I've used the correct word to describe what I meant here but surely you can't just assume the theorem when the proposition is just a special case of that very theorem? (I may be over complicating things...)
I can see where you're coming from, but it's a consequence of the theorem. Why prove theorems if not to explore their consequences?

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: September 27, 2011
Today on TSR

And I hate it

### University open days

• Manchester Metropolitan University
Wed, 14 Nov '18
• University of Chester
Wed, 14 Nov '18
• Anglia Ruskin University
Ambitious, driven, developing your career & employability? Aspiring in your field, up-skilling after a career break? Then our Postgrad Open Evening is for you. Postgraduate
Wed, 14 Nov '18
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams