Derive $sum_{s=r}^{infty} binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0 $ using an identity $(1 + x)^ m (1 + x)^{ -(r+1)} =...












2















To prove:
$$sum_{s=r}^{infty}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0 $$



Use the identity: $$(1 + x)^
m (1 + x)^{
-(r+1)} = (1 + x)^{
m-r-1}$$




I have trouble understanding the hint, could somebody help me understand what is meant?



Hint: use the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ to determine the coefficient of $x^{
m−r}$

in left and right hand
side of this identity, this coefficient is $0$. Why? Then derive the result by suitable substitutions of the summation variables.



I specifically don't understand what is meant with "using the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ " and determining the coefficient related to $x^{m-r}$



The formula for negative powers would give me:



$$(1+x)^{-n} = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-n}{k}x^k$$



If I would write this out for both sides I get:
$$ sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m}{k}x^k sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-(r+1)}{k}x^k = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m-r-1}{k}x^k$$



I know I can determine the coefficient of $x^n$ by writing $sum a_k b_{n-k}=c_n$.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 5




    Is there a missing sum sign somewhere in your first equation?
    – Connor Harris
    Nov 30 at 17:15










  • Yes, I made some typos with the indices and summations
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:52
















2















To prove:
$$sum_{s=r}^{infty}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0 $$



Use the identity: $$(1 + x)^
m (1 + x)^{
-(r+1)} = (1 + x)^{
m-r-1}$$




I have trouble understanding the hint, could somebody help me understand what is meant?



Hint: use the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ to determine the coefficient of $x^{
m−r}$

in left and right hand
side of this identity, this coefficient is $0$. Why? Then derive the result by suitable substitutions of the summation variables.



I specifically don't understand what is meant with "using the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ " and determining the coefficient related to $x^{m-r}$



The formula for negative powers would give me:



$$(1+x)^{-n} = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-n}{k}x^k$$



If I would write this out for both sides I get:
$$ sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m}{k}x^k sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-(r+1)}{k}x^k = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m-r-1}{k}x^k$$



I know I can determine the coefficient of $x^n$ by writing $sum a_k b_{n-k}=c_n$.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 5




    Is there a missing sum sign somewhere in your first equation?
    – Connor Harris
    Nov 30 at 17:15










  • Yes, I made some typos with the indices and summations
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:52














2












2








2








To prove:
$$sum_{s=r}^{infty}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0 $$



Use the identity: $$(1 + x)^
m (1 + x)^{
-(r+1)} = (1 + x)^{
m-r-1}$$




I have trouble understanding the hint, could somebody help me understand what is meant?



Hint: use the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ to determine the coefficient of $x^{
m−r}$

in left and right hand
side of this identity, this coefficient is $0$. Why? Then derive the result by suitable substitutions of the summation variables.



I specifically don't understand what is meant with "using the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ " and determining the coefficient related to $x^{m-r}$



The formula for negative powers would give me:



$$(1+x)^{-n} = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-n}{k}x^k$$



If I would write this out for both sides I get:
$$ sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m}{k}x^k sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-(r+1)}{k}x^k = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m-r-1}{k}x^k$$



I know I can determine the coefficient of $x^n$ by writing $sum a_k b_{n-k}=c_n$.










share|cite|improve this question
















To prove:
$$sum_{s=r}^{infty}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0 $$



Use the identity: $$(1 + x)^
m (1 + x)^{
-(r+1)} = (1 + x)^{
m-r-1}$$




I have trouble understanding the hint, could somebody help me understand what is meant?



Hint: use the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ to determine the coefficient of $x^{
m−r}$

in left and right hand
side of this identity, this coefficient is $0$. Why? Then derive the result by suitable substitutions of the summation variables.



I specifically don't understand what is meant with "using the generating function for negative powers of $1+x$ " and determining the coefficient related to $x^{m-r}$



The formula for negative powers would give me:



$$(1+x)^{-n} = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-n}{k}x^k$$



If I would write this out for both sides I get:
$$ sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m}{k}x^k sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{-(r+1)}{k}x^k = sum_{k=0} ^{infty} binom{m-r-1}{k}x^k$$



I know I can determine the coefficient of $x^n$ by writing $sum a_k b_{n-k}=c_n$.







combinatorics summation binomial-coefficients generating-functions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 3 at 16:58









Martin Sleziak

44.7k7115270




44.7k7115270










asked Nov 30 at 16:59









Wesley Strik

1,556422




1,556422








  • 5




    Is there a missing sum sign somewhere in your first equation?
    – Connor Harris
    Nov 30 at 17:15










  • Yes, I made some typos with the indices and summations
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:52














  • 5




    Is there a missing sum sign somewhere in your first equation?
    – Connor Harris
    Nov 30 at 17:15










  • Yes, I made some typos with the indices and summations
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:52








5




5




Is there a missing sum sign somewhere in your first equation?
– Connor Harris
Nov 30 at 17:15




Is there a missing sum sign somewhere in your first equation?
– Connor Harris
Nov 30 at 17:15












Yes, I made some typos with the indices and summations
– Wesley Strik
Nov 30 at 22:52




Yes, I made some typos with the indices and summations
– Wesley Strik
Nov 30 at 22:52










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














First of all, your formula for negative powers makes no sense. Your variables are all messed up. The power you're raising stuff to is $n$, which is also the index for your sum and $k$ is undefined. The formula on the RHS appears to be the expansion of $(1+x)^{-k}$, but I find its easiest to just recompute these things and doing so will give us a more convenient form of the formula anyway.



The correct approach is the following.



Start with the geometric series: $$frac{1}{1-x} = sum_{i=0}^infty x^i.$$
Then raise both sides to the $k$th power, to get
$$(1-x)^{-k} = left(sum_{i=0}^infty x^iright)^k.$$
The coefficient of $x^ell$ in the right hand side is the number of ways to choose $k$ distinct, ordered nonnegative integers that sum to $ell$. This is the stars and bars problem, and has the well known solution $binom{ell+k-1}{k-1}$.
Thus we have
$$(1-x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} x^i.$$
Finally, substitute $-x$ for $x$ to get
$$(1+x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} (-1)^i x^i.$$



I think this might be equivalent to the formula you've given, but nonetheless, I believe they want you to use this form of it, since it has the appropriate $(-1)^i$ that your formula is missing.



Now, if we multiply $(1+x)^m(1+x)^{-(r+1)}$, apply the formula and then take the coefficient of $m-r$, we get
$$sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{(m-r-s) + (r+1) -1}{(r+1)-1}(-1)^{m-s}$$
$$=sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{m-s}{r}(-1)^{m-s}.$$



Now if we reindex, with the new $s$ being $m-s$, we find that the sum runs from $r$ to $m$, and we have
$$=sum_{s=r}^m binom{m}{m-s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s.$$



The coefficient of $x^{m-r}$ on the right hand side is obviously zero, since the rhs has degree $m-r-1$, so we get
$$sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0,$$
as desired.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:10



















2














Here is the combinatorial solution no one asked for.



First of all, when $m=r$ the actual value of the LHS is $(-1)^m$, so from now on assume $mneq r$. We will answer the following question in two ways:




How many of the size $r$ subsets of an $m$ element set have size equal to $m$?




Answer 1: Obviously zero, since $mneq r$, so there are no sets with sizes equal to both $m$ and $r$! (Note when $m=r$, this answer would instead be $1$).



Answer 2: We will answer this using inclusion exclusion. First, the total number of subsets of size $r$ is $binom{m}r$. For each element $i$ of the set, we must subtract the "bad" size $r$ subsets which do not contain $i$ (if a set has size unequal to $m$, it must be missing some element). There are $binom{m-1}r$ subsets of size $r$ which do not contain $i$, and $binom{m}1$ ways to choose $i$. But then we must add back in the double intersections, then subtract the triple intersections, and so on. The result is
$$
binom{m}0binom{m}r-binom{m}1binom{m-1}r+binom{m}2binom{m-2}r-dots=sum_{sge 0}(-1)^sbinom{m}sbinom{m-s}r
$$

which after some rearranging is $(-1)^m$ times the desired summation.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:59










  • You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:16






  • 1




    I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:18



















1














Here is another combinatorial solution to the problem which no one asked for.



Assume, $m>r$. For a given $s$, $binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$ counts the number of ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m},mid Xmid =s, mid Ymid =r$.



Given $(X,Y)$, let $x$ be the smallest element of ${1,2,...,m}$ such that $x$ is not in $Y$. Then define the involution $f((X,Y)) = (Xoplus x, Y )$.
$Bigg( Xoplus x=begin{cases}
Xsetminus {x} & xin X\
Xcup {x} & xnotin X\
end{cases}Bigg)
$



Therefore, $f((X,Y))$ is a bijection from the ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ even to ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ odd.



Hence, $$sum_limits {s even}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}=sum_limits {s odd}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$$



$blacksquare$






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020325%2fderive-sum-s-r-infty-binomms-binomsr-1s-0-using-an-identit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    First of all, your formula for negative powers makes no sense. Your variables are all messed up. The power you're raising stuff to is $n$, which is also the index for your sum and $k$ is undefined. The formula on the RHS appears to be the expansion of $(1+x)^{-k}$, but I find its easiest to just recompute these things and doing so will give us a more convenient form of the formula anyway.



    The correct approach is the following.



    Start with the geometric series: $$frac{1}{1-x} = sum_{i=0}^infty x^i.$$
    Then raise both sides to the $k$th power, to get
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = left(sum_{i=0}^infty x^iright)^k.$$
    The coefficient of $x^ell$ in the right hand side is the number of ways to choose $k$ distinct, ordered nonnegative integers that sum to $ell$. This is the stars and bars problem, and has the well known solution $binom{ell+k-1}{k-1}$.
    Thus we have
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} x^i.$$
    Finally, substitute $-x$ for $x$ to get
    $$(1+x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} (-1)^i x^i.$$



    I think this might be equivalent to the formula you've given, but nonetheless, I believe they want you to use this form of it, since it has the appropriate $(-1)^i$ that your formula is missing.



    Now, if we multiply $(1+x)^m(1+x)^{-(r+1)}$, apply the formula and then take the coefficient of $m-r$, we get
    $$sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{(m-r-s) + (r+1) -1}{(r+1)-1}(-1)^{m-s}$$
    $$=sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{m-s}{r}(-1)^{m-s}.$$



    Now if we reindex, with the new $s$ being $m-s$, we find that the sum runs from $r$ to $m$, and we have
    $$=sum_{s=r}^m binom{m}{m-s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s.$$



    The coefficient of $x^{m-r}$ on the right hand side is obviously zero, since the rhs has degree $m-r-1$, so we get
    $$sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0,$$
    as desired.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:10
















    2














    First of all, your formula for negative powers makes no sense. Your variables are all messed up. The power you're raising stuff to is $n$, which is also the index for your sum and $k$ is undefined. The formula on the RHS appears to be the expansion of $(1+x)^{-k}$, but I find its easiest to just recompute these things and doing so will give us a more convenient form of the formula anyway.



    The correct approach is the following.



    Start with the geometric series: $$frac{1}{1-x} = sum_{i=0}^infty x^i.$$
    Then raise both sides to the $k$th power, to get
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = left(sum_{i=0}^infty x^iright)^k.$$
    The coefficient of $x^ell$ in the right hand side is the number of ways to choose $k$ distinct, ordered nonnegative integers that sum to $ell$. This is the stars and bars problem, and has the well known solution $binom{ell+k-1}{k-1}$.
    Thus we have
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} x^i.$$
    Finally, substitute $-x$ for $x$ to get
    $$(1+x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} (-1)^i x^i.$$



    I think this might be equivalent to the formula you've given, but nonetheless, I believe they want you to use this form of it, since it has the appropriate $(-1)^i$ that your formula is missing.



    Now, if we multiply $(1+x)^m(1+x)^{-(r+1)}$, apply the formula and then take the coefficient of $m-r$, we get
    $$sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{(m-r-s) + (r+1) -1}{(r+1)-1}(-1)^{m-s}$$
    $$=sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{m-s}{r}(-1)^{m-s}.$$



    Now if we reindex, with the new $s$ being $m-s$, we find that the sum runs from $r$ to $m$, and we have
    $$=sum_{s=r}^m binom{m}{m-s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s.$$



    The coefficient of $x^{m-r}$ on the right hand side is obviously zero, since the rhs has degree $m-r-1$, so we get
    $$sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0,$$
    as desired.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:10














    2












    2








    2






    First of all, your formula for negative powers makes no sense. Your variables are all messed up. The power you're raising stuff to is $n$, which is also the index for your sum and $k$ is undefined. The formula on the RHS appears to be the expansion of $(1+x)^{-k}$, but I find its easiest to just recompute these things and doing so will give us a more convenient form of the formula anyway.



    The correct approach is the following.



    Start with the geometric series: $$frac{1}{1-x} = sum_{i=0}^infty x^i.$$
    Then raise both sides to the $k$th power, to get
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = left(sum_{i=0}^infty x^iright)^k.$$
    The coefficient of $x^ell$ in the right hand side is the number of ways to choose $k$ distinct, ordered nonnegative integers that sum to $ell$. This is the stars and bars problem, and has the well known solution $binom{ell+k-1}{k-1}$.
    Thus we have
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} x^i.$$
    Finally, substitute $-x$ for $x$ to get
    $$(1+x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} (-1)^i x^i.$$



    I think this might be equivalent to the formula you've given, but nonetheless, I believe they want you to use this form of it, since it has the appropriate $(-1)^i$ that your formula is missing.



    Now, if we multiply $(1+x)^m(1+x)^{-(r+1)}$, apply the formula and then take the coefficient of $m-r$, we get
    $$sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{(m-r-s) + (r+1) -1}{(r+1)-1}(-1)^{m-s}$$
    $$=sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{m-s}{r}(-1)^{m-s}.$$



    Now if we reindex, with the new $s$ being $m-s$, we find that the sum runs from $r$ to $m$, and we have
    $$=sum_{s=r}^m binom{m}{m-s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s.$$



    The coefficient of $x^{m-r}$ on the right hand side is obviously zero, since the rhs has degree $m-r-1$, so we get
    $$sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0,$$
    as desired.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    First of all, your formula for negative powers makes no sense. Your variables are all messed up. The power you're raising stuff to is $n$, which is also the index for your sum and $k$ is undefined. The formula on the RHS appears to be the expansion of $(1+x)^{-k}$, but I find its easiest to just recompute these things and doing so will give us a more convenient form of the formula anyway.



    The correct approach is the following.



    Start with the geometric series: $$frac{1}{1-x} = sum_{i=0}^infty x^i.$$
    Then raise both sides to the $k$th power, to get
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = left(sum_{i=0}^infty x^iright)^k.$$
    The coefficient of $x^ell$ in the right hand side is the number of ways to choose $k$ distinct, ordered nonnegative integers that sum to $ell$. This is the stars and bars problem, and has the well known solution $binom{ell+k-1}{k-1}$.
    Thus we have
    $$(1-x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} x^i.$$
    Finally, substitute $-x$ for $x$ to get
    $$(1+x)^{-k} = sum_{i=0}^infty binom{i+k-1}{k-1} (-1)^i x^i.$$



    I think this might be equivalent to the formula you've given, but nonetheless, I believe they want you to use this form of it, since it has the appropriate $(-1)^i$ that your formula is missing.



    Now, if we multiply $(1+x)^m(1+x)^{-(r+1)}$, apply the formula and then take the coefficient of $m-r$, we get
    $$sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{(m-r-s) + (r+1) -1}{(r+1)-1}(-1)^{m-s}$$
    $$=sum_{s=0}^{m-r} binom{m}{s}binom{m-s}{r}(-1)^{m-s}.$$



    Now if we reindex, with the new $s$ being $m-s$, we find that the sum runs from $r$ to $m$, and we have
    $$=sum_{s=r}^m binom{m}{m-s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s.$$



    The coefficient of $x^{m-r}$ on the right hand side is obviously zero, since the rhs has degree $m-r-1$, so we get
    $$sum_{s=r}^mbinom{m}{s}binom{s}{r}(-1)^s=0,$$
    as desired.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Nov 30 at 23:27









    Wesley Strik

    1,556422




    1,556422










    answered Nov 30 at 18:01









    jgon

    12.7k21940




    12.7k21940












    • I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:10


















    • I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:10
















    I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:10




    I'm impressed by how you were able to answer my question so well with me doing a horrible job with the notation. Thank you.
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:10











    2














    Here is the combinatorial solution no one asked for.



    First of all, when $m=r$ the actual value of the LHS is $(-1)^m$, so from now on assume $mneq r$. We will answer the following question in two ways:




    How many of the size $r$ subsets of an $m$ element set have size equal to $m$?




    Answer 1: Obviously zero, since $mneq r$, so there are no sets with sizes equal to both $m$ and $r$! (Note when $m=r$, this answer would instead be $1$).



    Answer 2: We will answer this using inclusion exclusion. First, the total number of subsets of size $r$ is $binom{m}r$. For each element $i$ of the set, we must subtract the "bad" size $r$ subsets which do not contain $i$ (if a set has size unequal to $m$, it must be missing some element). There are $binom{m-1}r$ subsets of size $r$ which do not contain $i$, and $binom{m}1$ ways to choose $i$. But then we must add back in the double intersections, then subtract the triple intersections, and so on. The result is
    $$
    binom{m}0binom{m}r-binom{m}1binom{m-1}r+binom{m}2binom{m-2}r-dots=sum_{sge 0}(-1)^sbinom{m}sbinom{m-s}r
    $$

    which after some rearranging is $(-1)^m$ times the desired summation.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 22:59










    • You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:16






    • 1




      I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:18
















    2














    Here is the combinatorial solution no one asked for.



    First of all, when $m=r$ the actual value of the LHS is $(-1)^m$, so from now on assume $mneq r$. We will answer the following question in two ways:




    How many of the size $r$ subsets of an $m$ element set have size equal to $m$?




    Answer 1: Obviously zero, since $mneq r$, so there are no sets with sizes equal to both $m$ and $r$! (Note when $m=r$, this answer would instead be $1$).



    Answer 2: We will answer this using inclusion exclusion. First, the total number of subsets of size $r$ is $binom{m}r$. For each element $i$ of the set, we must subtract the "bad" size $r$ subsets which do not contain $i$ (if a set has size unequal to $m$, it must be missing some element). There are $binom{m-1}r$ subsets of size $r$ which do not contain $i$, and $binom{m}1$ ways to choose $i$. But then we must add back in the double intersections, then subtract the triple intersections, and so on. The result is
    $$
    binom{m}0binom{m}r-binom{m}1binom{m-1}r+binom{m}2binom{m-2}r-dots=sum_{sge 0}(-1)^sbinom{m}sbinom{m-s}r
    $$

    which after some rearranging is $(-1)^m$ times the desired summation.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 22:59










    • You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:16






    • 1




      I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:18














    2












    2








    2






    Here is the combinatorial solution no one asked for.



    First of all, when $m=r$ the actual value of the LHS is $(-1)^m$, so from now on assume $mneq r$. We will answer the following question in two ways:




    How many of the size $r$ subsets of an $m$ element set have size equal to $m$?




    Answer 1: Obviously zero, since $mneq r$, so there are no sets with sizes equal to both $m$ and $r$! (Note when $m=r$, this answer would instead be $1$).



    Answer 2: We will answer this using inclusion exclusion. First, the total number of subsets of size $r$ is $binom{m}r$. For each element $i$ of the set, we must subtract the "bad" size $r$ subsets which do not contain $i$ (if a set has size unequal to $m$, it must be missing some element). There are $binom{m-1}r$ subsets of size $r$ which do not contain $i$, and $binom{m}1$ ways to choose $i$. But then we must add back in the double intersections, then subtract the triple intersections, and so on. The result is
    $$
    binom{m}0binom{m}r-binom{m}1binom{m-1}r+binom{m}2binom{m-2}r-dots=sum_{sge 0}(-1)^sbinom{m}sbinom{m-s}r
    $$

    which after some rearranging is $(-1)^m$ times the desired summation.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Here is the combinatorial solution no one asked for.



    First of all, when $m=r$ the actual value of the LHS is $(-1)^m$, so from now on assume $mneq r$. We will answer the following question in two ways:




    How many of the size $r$ subsets of an $m$ element set have size equal to $m$?




    Answer 1: Obviously zero, since $mneq r$, so there are no sets with sizes equal to both $m$ and $r$! (Note when $m=r$, this answer would instead be $1$).



    Answer 2: We will answer this using inclusion exclusion. First, the total number of subsets of size $r$ is $binom{m}r$. For each element $i$ of the set, we must subtract the "bad" size $r$ subsets which do not contain $i$ (if a set has size unequal to $m$, it must be missing some element). There are $binom{m-1}r$ subsets of size $r$ which do not contain $i$, and $binom{m}1$ ways to choose $i$. But then we must add back in the double intersections, then subtract the triple intersections, and so on. The result is
    $$
    binom{m}0binom{m}r-binom{m}1binom{m-1}r+binom{m}2binom{m-2}r-dots=sum_{sge 0}(-1)^sbinom{m}sbinom{m-s}r
    $$

    which after some rearranging is $(-1)^m$ times the desired summation.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 30 at 18:45









    Mike Earnest

    20.2k11950




    20.2k11950












    • I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 22:59










    • You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:16






    • 1




      I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:18


















    • I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 22:59










    • You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:16






    • 1




      I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
      – Wesley Strik
      Nov 30 at 23:18
















    I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:59




    I appreciate your combinatorial proof :)
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 22:59












    You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:16




    You're the unappreciated maths hero that nobody asked for, but, I'm glad you're around ^^
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:16




    1




    1




    I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:18




    I like the general approach of counting something in two different ways and both methods require some creativity and 'coefficient yoga'.
    – Wesley Strik
    Nov 30 at 23:18











    1














    Here is another combinatorial solution to the problem which no one asked for.



    Assume, $m>r$. For a given $s$, $binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$ counts the number of ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m},mid Xmid =s, mid Ymid =r$.



    Given $(X,Y)$, let $x$ be the smallest element of ${1,2,...,m}$ such that $x$ is not in $Y$. Then define the involution $f((X,Y)) = (Xoplus x, Y )$.
    $Bigg( Xoplus x=begin{cases}
    Xsetminus {x} & xin X\
    Xcup {x} & xnotin X\
    end{cases}Bigg)
    $



    Therefore, $f((X,Y))$ is a bijection from the ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ even to ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ odd.



    Hence, $$sum_limits {s even}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}=sum_limits {s odd}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$$



    $blacksquare$






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      1














      Here is another combinatorial solution to the problem which no one asked for.



      Assume, $m>r$. For a given $s$, $binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$ counts the number of ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m},mid Xmid =s, mid Ymid =r$.



      Given $(X,Y)$, let $x$ be the smallest element of ${1,2,...,m}$ such that $x$ is not in $Y$. Then define the involution $f((X,Y)) = (Xoplus x, Y )$.
      $Bigg( Xoplus x=begin{cases}
      Xsetminus {x} & xin X\
      Xcup {x} & xnotin X\
      end{cases}Bigg)
      $



      Therefore, $f((X,Y))$ is a bijection from the ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ even to ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ odd.



      Hence, $$sum_limits {s even}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}=sum_limits {s odd}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$$



      $blacksquare$






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1






        Here is another combinatorial solution to the problem which no one asked for.



        Assume, $m>r$. For a given $s$, $binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$ counts the number of ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m},mid Xmid =s, mid Ymid =r$.



        Given $(X,Y)$, let $x$ be the smallest element of ${1,2,...,m}$ such that $x$ is not in $Y$. Then define the involution $f((X,Y)) = (Xoplus x, Y )$.
        $Bigg( Xoplus x=begin{cases}
        Xsetminus {x} & xin X\
        Xcup {x} & xnotin X\
        end{cases}Bigg)
        $



        Therefore, $f((X,Y))$ is a bijection from the ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ even to ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ odd.



        Hence, $$sum_limits {s even}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}=sum_limits {s odd}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$$



        $blacksquare$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Here is another combinatorial solution to the problem which no one asked for.



        Assume, $m>r$. For a given $s$, $binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$ counts the number of ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m},mid Xmid =s, mid Ymid =r$.



        Given $(X,Y)$, let $x$ be the smallest element of ${1,2,...,m}$ such that $x$ is not in $Y$. Then define the involution $f((X,Y)) = (Xoplus x, Y )$.
        $Bigg( Xoplus x=begin{cases}
        Xsetminus {x} & xin X\
        Xcup {x} & xnotin X\
        end{cases}Bigg)
        $



        Therefore, $f((X,Y))$ is a bijection from the ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ even to ordered pairs $(X,Y)$ such that $Ysubseteq Xsubseteq {1,2,...,m} $ with $mid Xmid $ odd.



        Hence, $$sum_limits {s even}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}=sum_limits {s odd}binom{m}{s} binom{s}{r}$$



        $blacksquare$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 3 at 16:20

























        answered Dec 3 at 15:37









        Anubhab Ghosal

        78412




        78412






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020325%2fderive-sum-s-r-infty-binomms-binomsr-1s-0-using-an-identit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen