Mixing
Results from extensions and variations of Dixon's Identity
The following problems stem from my investigations regarding an obscure identity discovered by Sir Alfred Cardew Dixon of Cambridge, it can be considered a theorem or formula, it's just silly sematics really because the essence of the concepts for which stem into modular arithmetic and number theory are captured in the equality as stated:
$$sum_{k=-a}^{a}(-1)^k{2achoose k+a}^3=frac{(3a!)}{a!^3}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition-1.0)}$$
note also I think at a prior date at some point I recall covering material written on the Riemann Zeta function by this fellow that was incredibly insightful albiet above my calibre at this point. none the less I will link the article for the identity above here.
A parameterization of the identity, that does not enumerate at any $m$ value to the actual identity, does however give credence to an aforementioned theorem in modular arithmetic:
$$xi left( n,m right) =sum_{k=-m n}^{m n}{(-1)^kBigl(frac{(m n)!}{(k+n)!((m -1)n-k)!}Bigr)^{m+1}}-frac{((m +1)n)!}{(n!)^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition0.0)}$$
The first lemma for which I found signficant concerning $xi left( n,m right)$ is that the difference in the integer remainders of the divisions of $xi left( n,m right)$ by any two consecutive natural numbers $(v,v+1)$ is a constant as follows:
$$Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}BigrrfloorBigr)v -Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}BigrrfloorBigr)(v+1)=frac{(n(m+1))!}{n!^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.1)}$$
The second, which brings us to a more clear picture as to why $(0.1)$ is so, is that the sign of $xi left( n,m right)$ is periodic, and the beauty in the simplicity of $(0.1)$ is really only appreciated when taking a look at just how painful in relational complexity this periodicity is, for which the signs that result from this in effect can be seen as the reason for which the constancy of $(0.1)$ exists, (or to put another way, independance of size of the integer remainders of division by $(v,v+1)$ for which the difference of is equal to the same constant for a given fixed $(n,m)$ ) which i have done my utmost to attempt to simplify as much as I can, I have chosen to represent some components of the sign identity in terms of the Kronecker delta function as denoted by $delta(x,y)$, however as one will see from it's contents what is being stated can just as easily be stated as congruence relations as we are familar in the form $aequiv bpmod n$, however I have chosen to represent the components of the sign identiy with dependance in $n$ with the former, and those components with $m$ dependance with the latter. If you have issue with my use of notation for this instance I will be happy to discuss alternatives with a serious individual with a non satirical stack exchange account:
$$frac{xi left( n,m right)}{|xi left( n,m right)|} =cases{ left( -1 right) ^{1-delta(frac{n}{4}, lfloor frac{n}{4} rfloor) }&$mequiv 1pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr left( -1 right)^{1-delta(frac{n}{2},lfloorfrac{n}{2}rfloor)}&$mequiv 0pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr 1&$mequiv 2pmod 4$cr}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.2)}$$
So to summarise thus far, this question is a request for assistance in
establishing a rigorous proof for:
1) the periodicity of $(0.0)$ as defined by $(0.2)$,
2) and the constancy of $(0.1)$ which results.
I have gone into further details about this subject but I don't want to carry on and receive a critical response for my question being too large, so I would like to leave it here i think for now.
I currently feel that induction could be applied to what I have already established but I just never feel comfortable unless it is applied to a circumstance that involves a vanishing quantity, anyway happy thanks giving pilgrims
elementary-number-theory modular-arithmetic factorial
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
add a comment |
The following problems stem from my investigations regarding an obscure identity discovered by Sir Alfred Cardew Dixon of Cambridge, it can be considered a theorem or formula, it's just silly sematics really because the essence of the concepts for which stem into modular arithmetic and number theory are captured in the equality as stated:
$$sum_{k=-a}^{a}(-1)^k{2achoose k+a}^3=frac{(3a!)}{a!^3}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition-1.0)}$$
note also I think at a prior date at some point I recall covering material written on the Riemann Zeta function by this fellow that was incredibly insightful albiet above my calibre at this point. none the less I will link the article for the identity above here.
A parameterization of the identity, that does not enumerate at any $m$ value to the actual identity, does however give credence to an aforementioned theorem in modular arithmetic:
$$xi left( n,m right) =sum_{k=-m n}^{m n}{(-1)^kBigl(frac{(m n)!}{(k+n)!((m -1)n-k)!}Bigr)^{m+1}}-frac{((m +1)n)!}{(n!)^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition0.0)}$$
The first lemma for which I found signficant concerning $xi left( n,m right)$ is that the difference in the integer remainders of the divisions of $xi left( n,m right)$ by any two consecutive natural numbers $(v,v+1)$ is a constant as follows:
$$Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}BigrrfloorBigr)v -Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}BigrrfloorBigr)(v+1)=frac{(n(m+1))!}{n!^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.1)}$$
The second, which brings us to a more clear picture as to why $(0.1)$ is so, is that the sign of $xi left( n,m right)$ is periodic, and the beauty in the simplicity of $(0.1)$ is really only appreciated when taking a look at just how painful in relational complexity this periodicity is, for which the signs that result from this in effect can be seen as the reason for which the constancy of $(0.1)$ exists, (or to put another way, independance of size of the integer remainders of division by $(v,v+1)$ for which the difference of is equal to the same constant for a given fixed $(n,m)$ ) which i have done my utmost to attempt to simplify as much as I can, I have chosen to represent some components of the sign identity in terms of the Kronecker delta function as denoted by $delta(x,y)$, however as one will see from it's contents what is being stated can just as easily be stated as congruence relations as we are familar in the form $aequiv bpmod n$, however I have chosen to represent the components of the sign identiy with dependance in $n$ with the former, and those components with $m$ dependance with the latter. If you have issue with my use of notation for this instance I will be happy to discuss alternatives with a serious individual with a non satirical stack exchange account:
$$frac{xi left( n,m right)}{|xi left( n,m right)|} =cases{ left( -1 right) ^{1-delta(frac{n}{4}, lfloor frac{n}{4} rfloor) }&$mequiv 1pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr left( -1 right)^{1-delta(frac{n}{2},lfloorfrac{n}{2}rfloor)}&$mequiv 0pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr 1&$mequiv 2pmod 4$cr}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.2)}$$
So to summarise thus far, this question is a request for assistance in
establishing a rigorous proof for:
1) the periodicity of $(0.0)$ as defined by $(0.2)$,
2) and the constancy of $(0.1)$ which results.
I have gone into further details about this subject but I don't want to carry on and receive a critical response for my question being too large, so I would like to leave it here i think for now.
I currently feel that induction could be applied to what I have already established but I just never feel comfortable unless it is applied to a circumstance that involves a vanishing quantity, anyway happy thanks giving pilgrims
elementary-number-theory modular-arithmetic factorial
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
add a comment |
The following problems stem from my investigations regarding an obscure identity discovered by Sir Alfred Cardew Dixon of Cambridge, it can be considered a theorem or formula, it's just silly sematics really because the essence of the concepts for which stem into modular arithmetic and number theory are captured in the equality as stated:
$$sum_{k=-a}^{a}(-1)^k{2achoose k+a}^3=frac{(3a!)}{a!^3}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition-1.0)}$$
note also I think at a prior date at some point I recall covering material written on the Riemann Zeta function by this fellow that was incredibly insightful albiet above my calibre at this point. none the less I will link the article for the identity above here.
A parameterization of the identity, that does not enumerate at any $m$ value to the actual identity, does however give credence to an aforementioned theorem in modular arithmetic:
$$xi left( n,m right) =sum_{k=-m n}^{m n}{(-1)^kBigl(frac{(m n)!}{(k+n)!((m -1)n-k)!}Bigr)^{m+1}}-frac{((m +1)n)!}{(n!)^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition0.0)}$$
The first lemma for which I found signficant concerning $xi left( n,m right)$ is that the difference in the integer remainders of the divisions of $xi left( n,m right)$ by any two consecutive natural numbers $(v,v+1)$ is a constant as follows:
$$Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}BigrrfloorBigr)v -Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}BigrrfloorBigr)(v+1)=frac{(n(m+1))!}{n!^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.1)}$$
The second, which brings us to a more clear picture as to why $(0.1)$ is so, is that the sign of $xi left( n,m right)$ is periodic, and the beauty in the simplicity of $(0.1)$ is really only appreciated when taking a look at just how painful in relational complexity this periodicity is, for which the signs that result from this in effect can be seen as the reason for which the constancy of $(0.1)$ exists, (or to put another way, independance of size of the integer remainders of division by $(v,v+1)$ for which the difference of is equal to the same constant for a given fixed $(n,m)$ ) which i have done my utmost to attempt to simplify as much as I can, I have chosen to represent some components of the sign identity in terms of the Kronecker delta function as denoted by $delta(x,y)$, however as one will see from it's contents what is being stated can just as easily be stated as congruence relations as we are familar in the form $aequiv bpmod n$, however I have chosen to represent the components of the sign identiy with dependance in $n$ with the former, and those components with $m$ dependance with the latter. If you have issue with my use of notation for this instance I will be happy to discuss alternatives with a serious individual with a non satirical stack exchange account:
$$frac{xi left( n,m right)}{|xi left( n,m right)|} =cases{ left( -1 right) ^{1-delta(frac{n}{4}, lfloor frac{n}{4} rfloor) }&$mequiv 1pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr left( -1 right)^{1-delta(frac{n}{2},lfloorfrac{n}{2}rfloor)}&$mequiv 0pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr 1&$mequiv 2pmod 4$cr}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.2)}$$
So to summarise thus far, this question is a request for assistance in
establishing a rigorous proof for:
1) the periodicity of $(0.0)$ as defined by $(0.2)$,
2) and the constancy of $(0.1)$ which results.
I have gone into further details about this subject but I don't want to carry on and receive a critical response for my question being too large, so I would like to leave it here i think for now.
I currently feel that induction could be applied to what I have already established but I just never feel comfortable unless it is applied to a circumstance that involves a vanishing quantity, anyway happy thanks giving pilgrims
elementary-number-theory modular-arithmetic factorial
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
The following problems stem from my investigations regarding an obscure identity discovered by Sir Alfred Cardew Dixon of Cambridge, it can be considered a theorem or formula, it's just silly sematics really because the essence of the concepts for which stem into modular arithmetic and number theory are captured in the equality as stated:
$$sum_{k=-a}^{a}(-1)^k{2achoose k+a}^3=frac{(3a!)}{a!^3}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition-1.0)}$$
note also I think at a prior date at some point I recall covering material written on the Riemann Zeta function by this fellow that was incredibly insightful albiet above my calibre at this point. none the less I will link the article for the identity above here.
A parameterization of the identity, that does not enumerate at any $m$ value to the actual identity, does however give credence to an aforementioned theorem in modular arithmetic:
$$xi left( n,m right) =sum_{k=-m n}^{m n}{(-1)^kBigl(frac{(m n)!}{(k+n)!((m -1)n-k)!}Bigr)^{m+1}}-frac{((m +1)n)!}{(n!)^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Definition0.0)}$$
The first lemma for which I found signficant concerning $xi left( n,m right)$ is that the difference in the integer remainders of the divisions of $xi left( n,m right)$ by any two consecutive natural numbers $(v,v+1)$ is a constant as follows:
$$Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v}BigrrfloorBigr)v -Bigl(frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}-Bigllfloor frac{xi left( n,m right)}{v+1}BigrrfloorBigr)(v+1)=frac{(n(m+1))!}{n!^{m+1}}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.1)}$$
The second, which brings us to a more clear picture as to why $(0.1)$ is so, is that the sign of $xi left( n,m right)$ is periodic, and the beauty in the simplicity of $(0.1)$ is really only appreciated when taking a look at just how painful in relational complexity this periodicity is, for which the signs that result from this in effect can be seen as the reason for which the constancy of $(0.1)$ exists, (or to put another way, independance of size of the integer remainders of division by $(v,v+1)$ for which the difference of is equal to the same constant for a given fixed $(n,m)$ ) which i have done my utmost to attempt to simplify as much as I can, I have chosen to represent some components of the sign identity in terms of the Kronecker delta function as denoted by $delta(x,y)$, however as one will see from it's contents what is being stated can just as easily be stated as congruence relations as we are familar in the form $aequiv bpmod n$, however I have chosen to represent the components of the sign identiy with dependance in $n$ with the former, and those components with $m$ dependance with the latter. If you have issue with my use of notation for this instance I will be happy to discuss alternatives with a serious individual with a non satirical stack exchange account:
$$frac{xi left( n,m right)}{|xi left( n,m right)|} =cases{ left( -1 right) ^{1-delta(frac{n}{4}, lfloor frac{n}{4} rfloor) }&$mequiv 1pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr left( -1 right)^{1-delta(frac{n}{2},lfloorfrac{n}{2}rfloor)}&$mequiv 0pmod 2 land mnotequiv 2pmod 4
$cr 1&$mequiv 2pmod 4$cr}$$
$$quadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadquadoperatorname{(Lemma0.2)}$$
So to summarise thus far, this question is a request for assistance in
establishing a rigorous proof for:
1) the periodicity of $(0.0)$ as defined by $(0.2)$,
2) and the constancy of $(0.1)$ which results.
I have gone into further details about this subject but I don't want to carry on and receive a critical response for my question being too large, so I would like to leave it here i think for now.
I currently feel that induction could be applied to what I have already established but I just never feel comfortable unless it is applied to a circumstance that involves a vanishing quantity, anyway happy thanks giving pilgrims
elementary-number-theory modular-arithmetic factorial
elementary-number-theory modular-arithmetic factorial
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
edited Nov 28 '18 at 8:38
Adam
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
asked Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
AdamAdam
54114
54114
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008549%2fresults-from-extensions-and-variations-of-dixons-identity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008549%2fresults-from-extensions-and-variations-of-dixons-identity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
