Math 0413 Supplement

Binomial Expansions and Roots

October 8, 2010

Binomial Expansions

You are familiar with the expansions

(a + b)1

a+b

=
=
=

a2 + 2ab + b2
a3 + 3a2 b + 3ab2 + b3
a4 + 4a3 b + 6a2 b2 + 4ab3 + b4 .

(a + b)
(a + b)3
(a + b)4

These formulas are called binomial expansions. They are obtained by repeated
application of the Distributive Law. The Binomial Theorem gives a recipe for
the general binomial expansion of (a + b)n , where n can be any natural number.

1.1

Binomial Coefficients

The numbers

 
n!
n
=
k
k!(n k)!

are called binomial coefficients.

Here n and k are non-negative integers with


k n. The symbol nk is read binomial n k or n choose k.

Theorem 1.1 (Binomial Theorem). Let n N. Then for any real numbers a
and b we have
n  
X
n nk k
(a + b)n =
a
b .
k
k=0

The proof of the Binomial Theorem requires

Lemma 1.2. For any n, k N with k n we have

 
  
n1
n1
n
+
=
k
k1
k

1
1
1
1
1

1
2

3
4

1
3

6
..
.

1
4

Figure 1: Pascals Triangle

Proof.


 

n1
n1
+
k
k1

=
=
=
=

(n 1)!
(n 1)!
+
k!(n 1 k)! (k 1)!(n k)!
(n 1)!(n k) + (n 1)!k
k!(n k)!
n!
k!(n k)!
 
n
.
k

Lemma 1.1 is the basis for Pascals Triangle (Figure 1), which gives a quick
way to calculate binomial coefficients for small values of n. The rows in the
triangle are numbered from the top, starting with 0. Row n give the coefficients
in the binomial expansion of (a + b)n . Notice that any entry in the triangle
which is not on the edge can be calculated as the sum of the entries in the
preceding row to the immediate left and right. This is precisely the content of
Lemma 1.1
Proof of the Binomial Theorem. The proof is by induction on n. The case n = 1
is trivial, since the assertion in this case is simply a + b = a + b. Assume that
n > 1 and that the theorem holds with n replaced by n 1. Then
(a + b)n

=
=

(a + b)(a + b)n1
n1
X n 1
an1k bk
(a + b)
k
k=0
n1
n1
X n 1
X n 1 
n1k k
a
a
b +b
an1k bk
k
k
k=0
k=0
n1
n1
X n 1
X n 1
an1k bk+1
ank bk +
k
k
k=0

k=0

=
=

n1
X



n 
n 1 nk k X n 1 nk k
a
b +
a
b
k
k1
k=0
k=1
n1
X n 1 n 1
n
+
ank bk + bn
a +
k
k1
k=1
n1
X n 
n
ank bk + bn
a +
k
k=1
n  
X
n nk k
a
b
k

k=0

Corollary 1.3.

n  
X
n

k=0

= 2n .

Proof. Take a = b = 1 in the Binomial Theorem.

Existence and uniqueness of roots

In this section we will prove existence and uniqueness of positive nth roots of
positive real numbers. Uniqueness only requires the field and order properties
of the real numbers. Existence requires the Completeness Axiom.

2.1

Uniqueness

Lemma 2.1. Let a and b be non-negative real numbers and let n N. Then
a < b if and only if an < bn .
Proof. We first prove the if part. Assume 0 a < b. We will show by induction that an < bn for every n N. In the case n = 1, theres nothing to prove.
For n > 1, we suppose that the inequality an1 < bn1 holds. Multiplying
through by the non-negative number a gives
an abn1 .
Also, multiplying the inequality a < b by the positive number bn1 gives
abn1 < bn .
Transitivity gives an < bn .
For the converse, we prove the contrapositive assertion: If a b then an
n
b . We consider two cases. If a = b, then an = bn , and so an bn holds. If
a > b, then by the part already proved (reversing the roles of a and b), an > bn ,
and so again an bn holds. This completes the proof.
3

Let a be any real number, and let n N. A real number b will be called an
nth root of a if bn = a.
Lemma 2.2. For any n N, a real number can have at most one non-negative
nth root.
Proof. Suppose a and b are non-negative nth roots for c. Then an and bn are
both equal to c, so
a n = bn .
By Lemma 2.1, this is inconsistent with both a < b and b < a, so by trichotomy
we must have a = b.

2.2

Existence of roots

Lemma 2.3. For any a, b [0, 1] and n N we have

(a + b)n an + 2n b.
Proof. By the Binomial Theorem,
(a + b)

n  
X
n

k=0

an + b

ank bk

n
X

ank bk1 .

k=1

Since a and b are both less than or equal to 1, we obtain

n  
X
n
n
n
(a + b)
a +b
k
k=1

n
X n
an + b
.
k
k=0

But the sum on the right equals 2n , by Corollary 1.3, so the proof is complete.
Theorem 2.4. Let a be any non-negative real number and let n N. There is
a unique non-negative real number b such that bn = a.
Proof. The uniqueness is established by Lemma 2.2, so the issue here is existence.
We first consider the case 0 a 1. Let
E = {x R : x 0 and xn a}.
Then E 6= , since 0 E. Also, since a 1, the number 1 is an upper bound
for E. By completeness, E has a least upper bound b which must be less than
or equal to 1. We will show that bn = a.
4

Let be any real number satisfying 0 < 1. Then b < b, so b

is not an upper bound for E. Therefore, there is an x E with b < x, or
equivalently,
b < x + .
By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3, we have
bn < (x + )n xn + 2n a + 2n
and so

bn a
.
2n
Since > 0 is arbitrary, (1) holds for every (0, 1), and therefore

(1)

bn a
0
2n
and so
bn a.

(2)

It remains to establish the reverse inequality.

Again, let be a real number with 0 < 1. Since b + > b, and b is an
upper bound for E, it follows that b + 6 E, and so
a < (b + )n .
By Lemma 2.3, we have
a < bn + 2n ,
so

a bn
<
2n
for every (0, 1). It follows that (a bn )/2n 0, and hence
a bn .

(3)

Combining (2) and (3) gives

bn = a
as required. This establishes the existence when 0 a 1.
It remains to consider the case a > 1. In this case, let a = 1/a. Then
0 < a < 1, so by the case already established, there is a positive real number
b such that
1
bn = a = .
a
Letting b = 1/b gives
bn = a.
The proof is now complete.
For any non-negative real number a and n N, we denote by a1/n the unique
non-negative real number b such that bn = a. The number a1/n is called the
nth root of a.
5

2.3

Rational powers

For any rational number r there are integers m and n, with n 6= 0, such that
r = m/n. Of course, the integers m and n are not uniquely determined. We
will call m/n the reduced representation of r if n > 0 and the integers m and
n have no common factors. The reduced representation of a rational number is
unique.
Let a be a positive real number and let r be a rational number with reduced
representation r = m/n. We define
ar = (a1/n )m .

2.4

Irrational powers

Making sense of ab when b is irrational can be tricky. One approach is to define

ab by way of the natural exponential and logarithm functions, but its easy end
up chasing your own tail here, since you must first give rigorous definitions of
the log and exponential functions. One way out is to define the natural log and
exponential functions to be solutions to certain differential equations. Existence
of solutions to these differential equations can be deduced from the Fundamental
Theorem of Calculus.
Another approach, which does not rely on calculus, is to base the definition
directly on the Completeness Axiom. When a 1, we could define
ab = sup{ar : r Q and r < b}.
When 0 < a < 1, you can then define
ab =

 b
1
.
a

This works, but there are some technical issues that need to be addressed. You
have to check that this agrees with the previous definition when b is rational,
and that the familiar rules for working with exponents hold. We will not pursue
this here.

Exercises
1. Prove that if m is a natural number which is not a perfect square then
m1/2 is irrational.
2. If m and n are natural numbers, show that m1/n is either irrational or an
integer.
3. Prove that for any positive real number a and any integers m and n with
n 6= 0 we have
am/n = (a1/n )m = (am )1/n .
6

4. Prove that for any positive a and any rational r and s we have
(ar )s = ars .
5. Prove that for any positive a and any rational r and s we have
ar+s = ar as .
6. Prove that for any positive a and b and any rational r we have
(ab)r = ar br .