I Prove series identity (Alternating reciprocal factorial sum)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving an alternating series identity involving reciprocal factorials, specifically relating to the Gamma and Poisson distributions. The identity is expressed as a sum of terms with alternating signs and factorials, leading to a proposed equivalence. Participants suggest using induction as a proof technique, emphasizing the need for multiple base cases to establish the identity's validity. A transformation of the series into a telescoping form using combinations is also discussed, which simplifies the proof process. Overall, the conversation highlights various strategies to tackle the proof of this mathematical identity.
uart
Science Advisor
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
21
This alternating series indentity with ascending and descending reciprocal factorials has me stumped.
\frac{1}{k! \, n!} + \frac{-1}{(k+1)! \, (n-1)!} + \frac{1}{(k+2)! \, (n-2)!} \cdots \frac{(-1)^n}{(k+n)! \, (0)!} = \frac{1}{(k-1)! \, n! \, (k+n)}
Or more compactly,
\sum_{r=0}^{n} ( \frac{(-1)^r}{(k+r)! \, (n-r)!} ) = \frac{1}{(k-1)! \, n! \, (k+n)}

BTW. (Assume n,k integers, with n \ge 0 and k \ge 1.)

In this particular instance (for me), this series arises from a connection between the Gamma (Erlang) distribution and the Poisson distribution, where for certain parameters they represent the same probability scenario.
Specifically 1 - poisson\_cdf(k-1,\lambda) = gamma\_cdf(x,k,\lambda) at x=1. I know this is true, but if I try to prove it by doing a series expansion of each of those CDFs and equating coefficients, then I end up with the alternating series that has me stumped.

Has anyone seen that series before or know of any insights in how best to prove it?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Identities of that kind often yield to induction. In this case you'd need two inductions, one on k and one on n.
I'd take the base case of k=1, n=0 and observe the identity's truth for that - both sides equalling 1.
Then I'd try proving that if the identity holds for k=k', n=n' then it holds for k=k',n=n'+1 and also for k=k'+1,n=n'. The result would follow by induction.

Sometimes the nature of the induction step proof requires us to have already proven more than one base case, eg not only k=1,n=0 but also k=1,n=1 and k=1,n=2. But if such a requirement exists it will become apparent when trying to prove one or other of the induction steps. In that case, you'd need to prove the additional base cases to complete the proof.
 
Equation to be proved is transformed to
(-)^k\sum_{r=0}^n \ _{n+k}C_{r+k} (-)^{r+k}=\ _{n+k-1}C_n
Terms under summation are interpreted as coefficients of ##x^{n-r}## in expansion of ##(x-1)^{n+k}##. I hope such a transformation could be helpful.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all. Yes I did try induction first up, but I didn't get anywhere with it.

That's a great approach anuttarasammyak, looks very promising.

And using the combinations property that,
_nC_r = \, _{n-1}C_r + \, _{n-1}C_{r-1}
with the end condition that _nC_0 = \, _{n-1}C_0, I'm pretty sure I can make that whole LHS "telescope".
 
Just sketching out a proof based on anuttarasammyak's insights.
\frac{1}{k! \, n!} + \frac{-1}{(k+1)! \, (n-1)!} + \frac{1}{(k+2)! \, (n-2)!} \cdots \frac{(-1)^n}{(k+n)! \, (0)!} = \frac{1}{(k-1)! \, n! \, (k+n)}
Multiplying both sides by (k+n)! puts the proposed identity into the following form.
_{n+k}C_n -\, _{n+k}C_{n-1} +\, _{n+k}C_{n-2} - \cdots (-1)^n \,\, _{n+k}C_{n-n}= \, _{n+k-1}C_n
Using the relationship that, \, _nC_k = \, _{n-1}C_k + \, _{n-1}C_{k-1} (for n,k >=1), the LSH can be written as,
[ _{n+k-1}C_n + \, _{n+k-1}C_{n-1}] - [ _{n+k-1}C_{n-1} + \, _{n+k-1}C_{n-2}] + \cdots (-1)^{n-1} [ _{n+k-1}C_1 + \, _{n+k-1}C_0] + (-1)^n [ _{n+k}C_0 ]
Here the second binomial coefficient in each square bracketed term cancels with the first binomial coeff in the following bracketed term, so the series telescopes leaving just the very first coeff of, \, _{n+k-1}C_n, hence LHS = RHS.
 
  • Like
Likes anuttarasammyak
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top