25

How can we prove, without using the properties of binomial coefficients, the product of $n$ consecutive integers is divisible by $n$ factorial?

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
Paulo Argolo
  • 4,210
  • 2
    You could have just edited your previous question... – J. M. ain't a mathematician Nov 27 '10 at 14:35
  • 1
    NOTE $\ $ This question is not an exact duplicate of any prior question. The question is interesting with the added proviso to not employ properties of binomial coef's. Note that this proviso was not part of the prior question. The prior question should be closed as a duplicate, but not this one. – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 15:42
  • 4
    @Bill: Old questions being closed as dupes of newer ones does not make any sense. We can easily have this edited into the old. Either this one goes or both stay open. IMO, this is so closely related to the previous one, that we should edit this into the old one and close this one. – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 15:57
  • 2
    I don't agree. The prior question already has three answers being given to the question without the proviso, i.e. to the nonintended question. Better to close that one since the questions and the answers are all exact duplicates of a prior question. – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 16:04
  • @Bill: And this one also has been answered by one of those answers. I don't see your point. – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 16:29
  • @Moron: This post has the intended question, and only answers to that question. The prior post has the unintended (duplicate) question and mostly answers to that duplicate question. But you think that the duplicate should remain open? Your logic escapes me. – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 16:39
  • @Bill: What intended question? Both questions are very similar and in fact both have been answered by the answers in the other question, which is in fact a super set of this one. I see no point in keeping this open. Especially, when the other (older) one can be edited easily to make it clear that non binom coeff proofs are also sought. Once a question is written it is not cast in stone. It can always be edited. This conversation is pointless. – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 19:15
  • @Moron: This later question with the poviso is what the OP intended - as he indicated in a comment to the prior question, viz. "I wish to obtain a proof which does not use the properties of binomial coefficients". The problem with editing the prior question to change it to this later question is that it then makes most of the answers to that question no longer applicable to the newly edited question. This later question with the proviso is a very different question than the former question without it. I think the best solution is to close the prior as a dup and move one answer there here. – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 19:31
  • @Bill: If it was clear from the comments in the other question, why didn't people edit that question and give suitable answers? Very strange. I don't think we should encourage such behaviour, either for OP to create new questions instead of editing or for people to ignore pertinent comments to the question. Anyway... – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 19:38
  • @Moron: My remarks pertain to how to cleanup the two threads. They say nothing about encouraging "such behavior" - whatever that might mean. As for the first question, the OP's clarifying comment was posted after the first answer (and after I started composing my answer). Wasn't that obvious? – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 20:19
  • @Bill: If the cleanup is to close an old question as a dupe of a new one, something is wrong somewhere. In this case, it is OP creating a new question instead of editing, and people ignoring comments before answering. As to your comment about obvious, it is not. There was plenty of time between OP commenting and the other answers appearing. As to the behaviour comment, it had nothing to with what you did. It is about trying to have a high signal to noise ratio on this site. We can't have people creating questions and ignoring them, or people giving answers without reading relevant comments. – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 20:44
  • Another thing is people posting answers to questions which ought to be closed as dupes (which is another case of not reading relevant comments here). – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 21:04
  • @Moron: You can't expect every person answering a question to know it is a dupe. Nor can you expect every person to have read every comment (esp. before they were posted!). In this case the best solution is to close the duplicate original, and merge one answer from there here. Apparently you think that doing so would condone the user's behavior of posting a new question. I don't understand why you think that. In any case this is a job for the mods so we should simply let them do what is required. – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 21:31
  • 3
    @Bill: What are you talking about? Paolo was well aware that he had posted the older question and even made a comment in that question saying he didn't want proofs involving binomial coefficients. Instead of editing that question, he just opened a new one. That is the behaviour I think should be discouraged. Having multiple questions with minor variations, when one question will do is just increasing the noise in the site. – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 23:01
  • @Moron: Where did you get the strange idea that I endorse posting multiple questions with minor variations? – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 23:11
  • @Bill: Well, then don't answer them! Anyway, I am wasting my time on this minor issue. Please don't expect any more responses from me on this. – Aryabhata Nov 27 '10 at 23:35
  • 2
    @Moron: If you choose to "penalize" someone who made an honest mistake by refusing to answer their question then that is certainly your prerogative. But I am here first and foremost to share my knowledge of mathematics by answering questions. So please do refrain from telling me what to do in that regard. – Bill Dubuque Nov 27 '10 at 23:52

5 Answers5

27

You could argue by induction on $n$. The result is obvious if $n=1$.

For the inductive step, assume that $(n-1)!$ divides any product of $n-1$ consecutive integers. Now consider products of $n$ consecutive integers.

Say your product is $P(k)=(k+1)(k+2)\dots(k+n)$. First, you may assume $k\ge0$: If one of the factors $k+j$ is 0, then $P(k)=0$ and obviously $n!$ divides it. If $k+n=-t-1<0$, this is the same as $$(-1)^n(t+1)(t+2)\dots(t+n)=(-1)^nP(t),$$ and $t\ge0$.

Now argue by induction on $k$. The result clearly holds if $k=0$, since $P(0)=n!$.

Suppose $n!|P(k)$. Then $P(k+1)=(k+2)(k+3)\dots(k+n+1)$. Split the last factor as $(k+1)+n$. We have $$P(k+1)=[(k+2)\dots(k+n)](k+1)+[(k+2)\dots(k+n)]n.$$ The first summand is $P(k)$, which is divisible by $n!$ by the inductive assumption on $k$. The second summand is $n$ times a product of $n-1$ consecutive integers, thus $n$ times a multiple of $(n-1)!$, by the inductive assumption on $n$. Clearly, $n$ times a multiple of $(n-1)!$ is a multiple of $n!$, and the sum of two multiples of $n!$ is a multiple of $n!$, so $n!|P(k+1)$.

We are done by induction.

  • To my understanding, you assume that for some k ≥ 1, for any n ≥ 0, n! divides k(k+1)...(k+n). However, you then claim that (k+1)...(k+n-1) is divisible by (n-1)! which the assumption for k does not imply. May you clarify this? – rr01 Aug 09 '17 at 09:18
  • The argument is an induction on $n $. The proof states this explicitly. – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 09 '17 at 11:27
  • 4
    Apologies if this was evident to everyone but me, but it took a few minutes for me to realise that this was essentially a nice proof of $\binom{n}{k}=\binom{n-1}{k}+\binom{n-1}{k-1}$ – Alexander51413 Dec 30 '20 at 19:52
  • @Alexander51413 Indeed, it essentially does use binomial coefficients, so does not answer the question. – Bill Dubuque Apr 30 '23 at 06:12
5

Since this statement is equivalent to the fact that binomial coefficients are integral it is a bit tricky to make precise the notion of a proof that does not "use properties of binomial coefficients". I will interpret this proviso to mean that the proof is not essentially combinatorial, i.e. it does not employ properties that are immediate from the combinatorial interpretation of binomial coefficients.

In my post here you'll find a purely arithmetical proof that $\rm\: n!\: $ divides the product of $\rm\:n\:$ consecutive integers. The proof shows how to rewrite the associated fraction as a product of fractions whose denominators are all coprime to any given prime $\rm\:p\:$. This implies that no primes divide the denominator (when written in lowest terms), hence the fraction is an integer.

The key property that lies at the heart of this proof is that, among all products of $\rm\: n\:$ consecutive integers, $\rm\ n!\ $ has the least possible power of $\rm\:p\:$ dividing it - for all primes $\rm\:p\:$. Thus $\rm\ n!\ $ divides every product of $\rm\:n\:$ consecutive integers, since it has a smaller power of every prime divisor.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
5

Let's define $$P(n,k) = \frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}(k+i)}{n!}.$$

If $n$ is zero, the product is zero. If $k$ is zero, the product is $n!$. Both are divisible by $n!$.

If $k < -n < 0$ then, $$P(n,k) = (-1)^nP(n,-k-n).$$

As such it suffices to prove this for non-negative $k$.

Induction:

Base case:

If $n+k = 1$ then $P(0,1) = 0 \in \mathbb{N}$ and $P(1,0) = 1 \in \mathbb{N}$.

Inductive step:

Suppose that $P(n,k) \in \mathbb{N}$ for all $n+k = z.$

Then for any $P(n,k)$ with $n+k = z+1$, $$\begin{gather} P(n,k) = \frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}(k+i)}{n!}\\ =(k+n)\frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}(k+i)}{n!} \\ =k\frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}(k+i)}{n!} + n\frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}(k+i)}{n!}\\ =\frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}((k-1)+i)}{n!} + \frac{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}(k+i)}{(n-1)!}\\ =P(n,k-1) + P(n-1,k). \end{gather} $$

Both terms are natural numbers and hence $P(n,k) \in \mathbb{N}$. This completes the induction and the proof.

amWhy
  • 209,954
Veritas
  • 703
4

Below is an alternate proof excerpted from MathHelp which uses the result about the highest power of a prime dividing a factorial.


The product of $n$ consecutive integers is divisible by $n!$

Proof 2: Consider the largest power of each prime factor of the product of consecutive integers. Let P be the product,

$$P = (m+1)(m+2)\cdots (m+n) = (m+n)!/m!$$

For any given positive integer $n$ and prime $p$, define the function $E(n,p) = e$ such that $p^e$ is the largest power of $p$ that divides $n!$. This is the number of numbers from $1$ to $n$ divisible by $p$ plus the number of numbers divisible by $p^2$ plus the number of numbers divisible by $p^3$, etc.

$$E(n,p) = \lfloor{n/p}\rfloor + \lfloor{n/p^2}\rfloor + \lfloor{n/p^3}\rfloor + \ldots$$

Using this definition with the product, $P=(m+n)!/m!$, we see that

$$E(m+n,p)-E(m,p) = \lfloor{(m+n)/p}\rfloor - \lfloor{m/p}\rfloor + \lfloor{(m+n)/p^2}\rfloor - \lfloor{m/p^2}\rfloor + \lfloor{(m+n)/p^3}\rfloor - \lfloor{m/p^3}\rfloor + \ldots$$

which is at least as large as $E(n,p)$ for any given $m, n$ and $p$, because for any real numbers, $a$ and $b,\,$ $\,\lfloor{a+b}\rfloor \ge \lfloor{a}\rfloor + \lfloor{b}\rfloor$

3

Almost self contained proof without induction. (Let $p$ be an arbitrary prime) We will denote by $\nu_p$ the $p$-adic valuation and let $s_p\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n}{a_jp^j}\right)=\sum_{j=0}^{n}{a_j}$ denote the sum of digits in base $p$. We claim that $$\nu_p(n!)=\frac{n-s_p(n)}{p-1}$$ This may be directly verified by subsituting $n=\sum_{j=1}^{k}{a_jp^j}$ and using Legendre's formula: $$\nu_p(n!)=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}{\left\lfloor \frac{n}{p^j} \right\rfloor}$$ This inequality can be easily shown: $$s_p(a+b)\leq s_p(a)+s_p(b)$$ Therefore,$$\nu_p\left(\binom{n}{k}\right)=\nu_p\left(\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}\right)=\frac{s_p(k)+s_p(n-k)-s_p(n)}{p-1}\geq 0$$ hence we have proved that $$\binom{n}{k}=\frac{n(n-1)\ldots(n-k+1)}{k!}\in \mathbb{Z}$$ [Using :"If $x\in\mathbb{Q}$ such that $\nu_p(x)\geq 0$ for all primes $p$ then $x\in \mathbb{Z}$"]

MATHS MOD
  • 646
  • 6
  • 14