Hi

here is link to Pascal's rule at wikipedia

Pascal's rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

its written as

if we plug in k=n+1 , we get

is something wrong ?

(Emo)

Printable View

- October 5th 2011, 10:34 PMissacnewtonwikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
Hi

here is link to Pascal's rule at wikipedia

Pascal's rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

its written as

if we plug in k=n+1 , we get

is something wrong ?

(Emo) - October 5th 2011, 10:39 PMissacnewtonRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
i think the range should defined as

right ? - October 6th 2011, 12:17 AMCaptainBlackRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
- October 6th 2011, 12:21 AMissacnewtonRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
thats what i was wondering.. is wikipedia entry wrong then ?

- October 6th 2011, 01:17 AMCaptainBlackRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
I beleive so, >>Planet Math's<< limits for k are what we might expect

I think I should also give >>Proof Wiki's<< page a plug.

CB - October 6th 2011, 04:14 AMissacnewtonRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
Thanks captain , So did you fix 'proof wiki' page. When I went there, it was ok. Ask somebody at wikipedia to fix it.

- October 6th 2011, 05:34 AMCaptainBlackRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
- October 8th 2011, 06:19 PMawkwardRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
Some authors define

whenever it is not true that .

See, for example, Knuth, "The Art of Computer Programming, Vol 1", or

Binomial Coefficient -- from Wolfram MathWorld.

By this definition, it is correct to say that

. - October 8th 2011, 06:42 PMissacnewtonRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule
if that is what the definition is , then all is well............

- October 8th 2011, 08:43 PMCaptainBlackRe: wikipedia entry on Pascal's rule

It is not**the**definition but**a**definition. Knuth is particularly known for this sort of thing (defining undefined notation in a manner which suits his current purpose), but it is also consistent with interpretation of the factorial in terms of the gamma function.

CB