10

I've recently run across a false direct proof that $n!$ divides $(n+1)(n+2)\cdots (2n)$ here on math.stackexchange. The proof is here prove that $\frac{(2n)!}{(n!)^2}$ is even if $n$ is a positive integer (it is the one by user pedja, which got 11 upvotes). The proof is wrong because it claims that one can rewrite $(n+1)\cdots (2n)$ as

$$ (n+1)(n+2)\cdots 2(n-2)(2n-1)(2n) = 2\cdots 2\cdot n!\cdot (2n-1)(2n-3)\cdots (n+1).$$

In other words, it claims that the product of the factors $2n$, $2(n-1)$, $2(n-2)$, $\ldots$, all of which are in $(n+1)\cdots(2n)$, amounts to $2^kn!$, but this is not true since the factors $2m$ under scrutiny do not start from $m=1$ but from values greater than $n$. For instance, for $n=4$, we have $(8)(7)(6)(5)=2\cdot 2\cdot 4\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot 7$, not $(8)(7)(6)(5)=2\cdot 2\cdot 4!\cdot 5\cdot 7$. This makes me wonder two things:

(1) What is a valid direct proof?

(2) How many wrong proofs do go undetected here? (How many false proofs receive 10+ upvotes?)

NB Not interested in any proof that uses binomial coefficients and/or the relationship $\binom{2n}{n}=\frac{(2n)!}{n!n!}$.

  • +1 for detecting a false proof. :confus: for asking for frequency of that which is undetected - isn't that an oxymoron? (At any rate, besides being unanswerable by definition, it's suited for meta.math.SE) – anon May 16 '14 at 04:46
  • No, it is answerable. Question (1) is. – user144248 May 16 '14 at 04:51
  • @seaturtles Question (2) appears not to be unanswerable by definition as well, to me, since one could do this kind of analysis, e.g., look through 1000 proofs with 10+ votes and evaluate how many of them are wrong. So, I don't see any contradiction here. But thanks for your input. – user144248 May 16 '14 at 04:53
  • The pronoun "it" in my parenthetical is referring to (2) of course. Your proposal seems very odd: everyone is already going through all of the posts. Some don't get attention, others get positive attention, others negative attention, some are correct, some are incorrect, and the relative proportions between all of these are ever-changing. As for why it's a contradiction - once you detect a previously undetected wrong answer, it is no longer undetected, and the wrong answers that we don't detect will not be counted (since we did not detect them). – anon May 16 '14 at 04:53
  • Does the proof with Lagrange theorem in the other thread not satisfy you? It's pretty neat though. – Gabriel Romon May 16 '14 at 05:06
  • @seaturtles Your argument is too sophisticated and philosophical. I give you a valid sense of my question. At any point in time, one could do an analysis as I have sketched (say, a "proof patrol" could do this job) and then answer the question for example as follows: "As of today, $.3%$ of the 10+ answers have been wrong and undetected by the community." – user144248 May 16 '14 at 05:06
  • @GabrielR. Yes, it does, to some degree. But shouldn't there be a very simple direct elementary argument? – user144248 May 16 '14 at 05:11
  • @user144248: You probably also need to differentiate what type of "wrong" you mean. Clearly you mean formal proof evaluated in a given theory - I'm just saying you need to be explicit. There are plenty of problems of mathematical content on this site that I feel are wrong, though they may have 50+ upvotes. An example is http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/753997/are-there-contradictions-in-math/757009#757009 where the first two have 63 and 55 votes, yet I feel they are quite wrong for deeply mathematical reasons. They aren't incorrect derivations in a theory, though. – ex0du5 May 16 '14 at 06:33
  • @ex0du5 My main point was question (1). Question (2) was a bit of a cyncial remark (how could 11 users upvote an apparently incorrect proof?) but somehow seems to have attracted more attention than Q (1). Questions like "is math contradiction-free?" appear to be of a different nature than "is this proof correct?", which was my focus. – user144248 May 16 '14 at 18:39

4 Answers4

8

We present a proof that uses just basic properties of divisibility. Note that $(2n)!=n!(n+1)(n+2)\cdots (2n)$. The result will follow if we prove the following stronger lemma.

Lemma: The product of any $n$ consecutive positive integers is divisible by $n!$.

Proof of Lemma: The proof is by a double induction. We suppose that the product of any $n$ consecutive positive integers is divisible by $n!$, and show that the product of any $n+1$ consecutive positive integers is divisible by $(n+1)!$.

Consider the product $$P(w)=(w+1)(w+2)\cdots(w+n+1).$$ We show by induction on $w$ that $P(w)$ is divisible by $(n+1)!$ for any non-negative integer $w$. The result is trivially true if $w=0$. We show that if the result holds for $w$, it holds for $w+1$. We have $$P(w+1)=(w+2)(w+3)\cdots (w+n+2).$$ By bringing out common factors, we observe that $$P(w+1)-P(w)=(w+2)(w+3)\cdots(w+n+1)[(w+n+2)-(w+1)]=(w+2)(w+3)\cdots(w+n+1)[n+1].\tag{1}$$ The product $(w+2)(w+3)\cdots(w+n+1)$ is the product of $n$ consecutive positive integers, so by the outer induction hypothesis it is divisible by $n!$. It follows from (1) that $P(w+1)-P(w)$ is divisible by $(n+1)!$. But by the inner induction hypothesis, $P(w)$ is divisible by $(n+1)!$. It follows that $P(w+1)$ is divisible by $(n+1)!$. This completes the proof.

Remark: This is really an answer to a recent previous question asking for a "divisibility" proof of the fact that $(n!)^2$ divides $(2n)!$. That question (which I cannot find) was closed as a duplicate of a question of which it was not a duplicate, and which is referred to in the OP.

André Nicolas
  • 507,029
4

I am not really interested in reading other threads but here is an alternate proof.

Take a positive integer $d \le n$. Then suppose $n+1 \equiv a \pmod d$. Then the numbers $n+1, n+2, \cdots, 2n$ cycle through atleast one complete residue class $\pmod d$ since the next residue is just $+1$ the previous. Then by CRT, we are done.

  • Interesting proof, not the one I've been looking for though (should have excluded CRT as well, in this case :)). – user144248 May 16 '14 at 04:46
  • Btw. no need to read through other threads. I included all the information in the question (the link was merely for verification purposes). – user144248 May 16 '14 at 04:49
1

Let $p$ be a prime and $k$ an arbitrary integer such that $p^k\le n$, and let $b$ be the largest positive integer such that $p^k\cdot b\le n$. Then $p^k(b+1)\gt n$ and $p^k\cdot 2b\le 2n$. By this, every multiple of $p^k$ from $1$ to $b$ appears in the interval $[1,n]$, and similarly for the $b+1$ to $2b$ multiples which appear in $[n+1,2n]$, and thus the number of times a factor $p^k$ appears in $n!$ is less than or equal to the number of times it appears in $(2n)!\over n!$. But $p$ and $k$ were arbitrarily chosen as $p^k\in[1,n]$, so this applies to every power of every prime that appears in the interval $[1,n]$. Therefore

$$n!\mid \frac{(2n)!}{n!}$$

abiessu
  • 8,115
0

Here is a more direct number theoretical type proof that if $a \ge 0$ and $a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_r = n$ that $\frac{n!}{a_1!a_2! \cdots a_r!}$ is an integer.

This reduces to proving $\sum \left \lfloor \frac{n}{p_i} \right \rfloor \ge \sum \left \lfloor \frac{a_1}{p_i} \right \rfloor + \sum \left \lfloor \frac{a_1}{p_i} \right \rfloor + \cdots + \sum \left \lfloor \frac{a_r}{p_i} \right\rfloor $.

Lemma: $\lfloor x \rfloor + \lfloor y \rfloor \le \lfloor x+y \rfloor$ if $x,y$ are real numbers.

This can be easily proved by writing $x,y$ in terms of their integer and fractional parts.

Applying this to the $RHS$ gives $RHS \le \left \lfloor \frac{a_1+a_2+ \cdots + a_r}{p_i} \right \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{n}{p_i} \rfloor$ and doing this over all $i$ and all $p$ gives the desired result.