# The value of binomial(-1,-1) is?

Maple says 1, Mathematica says 1, Sage says 0 (at least in the version installed on SMC).

Peter

The value of binomial(-1,-1) is?

Maple says 1, Mathematica says 1, Sage says 0 (at least in the version installed on SMC).

Peter

1

I think that Mathematica says that binomial(-1, 0) is 1, as is binomial(-1, -1). (They may be taking their extension to negative entries from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3689.pdf?) So if I'm right, then the identity

```
binomial(n,k) + binomial(n, k+1) = binomial(n+1, k+1)
```

fails when `n=-1, k=-1`

. Sage seems to use a different convention so that this identity is preserved, or at least that's my guess as to what's going on:

```
sage: binomial(-1, -1)
0
sage: binomial(-1, 0)
1
sage: binomial(-1, -1) + binomial(-1, 0) == binomial(0, 0)
True
```

Set binomial(n,r) = limit(gamma(n+t+1)/(gamma(r+1)*gamma(n+t-r+1)), t=0). By symmetry binomial(-1,-1)= binomial(-1,0). Substituting n=-1, r=0 we get limit(gamma(t)/(gamma(1)*gamma(t)), t = 0) which is 1.

Yes, but my point was exactly that there are several choices about how to define binomial coefficients sensibly for negative numbers. This limit involving Gamma functions is one of them, but not the only one.

Whatever the convention is, a convention which violates the symmetry relation binomial (n, k) = binomial (n, n - k) (here binomial(-1,-1) = binomial(-1,0)) is not acceptable.

I would say the same about the relation binomial(n,k)+binomial(n,k+1)=binomial(n+1,k+1).

OK, at this point we have to stop arguing and start afresh giving first a definition of binomial(n,k) for negative integers n, k. After reading Kronenburg (thanks for the reference!) I for my part take his theorem 2.1 as the definition. And I am very happy that than binomial(-1,-1) turns out to be 1. (As a side note: Somehow the discussion is similar to what the value of 0^0 is. My experience shows me that things work better out when binomial(-1,-1) and 0^0 have the same value. And 0^0 is 1, isn't it?)

Asked: **
2014-10-07 08:08:30 -0600
**

Seen: **153 times**

Last updated: **Oct 07 '14**

A Combinatorics Problem - Product Rule Indices

DyckWords: workaround for from_ordered_tree?

Seeking an efficient filter for partitions.

Forming a polytope from only its combinatorial data

optimizing graph coloring for small chromatic number

code for tail and head of an edge in a bipartite graph

All decompositions of a prime as a sum of four squares

Copyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.

The doc says "If `m < 0`, return `0`."

Yes. binomial(n,k) is often defined only for n>=0, k>=0, and otherwise set to 0. The result is in accordance with this definition. But is this restriction adequate for a system like Sage? I do not think so. In this sense I feel it is a bug.

An important example is binomial(n-1, k-1), an expression which arises in many combinatorial formulas. The Sage-definition prevents the right extension of all these formulas to (n,k) = (0,0). I could point at such cases in the OEIS where in consequence Maple and Mathematica compute different results compared to Sage, a very unsatisfactory situation.

Magma says 0.