Continuing from my last post in this series, we’re trying to show that , where
is defined as
which is what we get when we start with a sequence of consecutive
th powers and repeatedly take successive differences.
Recall that we defined as the set of all functions from a set of size
(visualized as
blue dots) to a set of size
(visualized as
yellow dots on top of
blue dots) such that the blue dot numbered
is missing. I also explained in my previous post that the functions with at least one blue dot missing from the output are exactly the “bad” functions, that is, the functions which do not correspond to a one-to-one matching between the blue dots on the left and the blue dots on the right.
As an example, the function pictured above is an element of , as well as an element of
. (That means it’s also an element of the intersection
—this will be important later!)
Let be the set of all functions from
to
, and let
be the set of “good” functions, that is, the subset of
consisting of matchings (aka Permutations—I couldn’t use
for Matchings because
is already taken!) between the blue sets. We already know that the number of matchings between two sets of size
, that is,
, is equal to
. However, let’s see if we can count them a different way.
Every function is either “good” or “bad”, so we can describe the set of good functions as what’s left over when we remove all the bad ones:
(Notice how we can’t just write , because the
sets overlap! But if we union all of them we’ll get each “bad” function once.)
In other words, we want to count the functions that aren’t in any of the . But this is exactly what the Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion (PIE) is for! PIE tells us that the size of this set is
that is, we take all possible intersections of some of the , and either add or subtract the size of each intersection depending on whether the number of sets being intersected is even or odd.
We’re getting close! To simplify this more we’ll need to figure out what those intersections look like.
Intersections
What does look like? The members of
are exactly those functions which are in both
and
, so
contains all the functions that are missing both
and
(and possibly other elements). Likewise,
contains all the functions that are missing (at least)
,
, and
; and so on.
Last time we argued that , since functions from
to
that are missing
can be put into a 1-1 matching with arbitrary functions from
to
, just by deleting or inserting element
:
So what about an intersection—how big is (assuming
)? By a similar argument, it must be
, since we can match up each function in
with a function from
to
: just delete or insert both elements
and
, like this:
Generalizing, if we have a subset and intersect all the
for
, we get the set of functions whose output is missing all the elements of
, and we can match them up with functions from
to
. In formal notation,
Substituting this into the previous expression for the number of blue matchings , we get
Counting subsets
Notice that the value of depends only on the size of the subset
and not on its specific elements. This makes sense: the number of functions missing some particular number of elements is the same no matter which specific elements we pick to be missing.
So for each particular size , we are adding up a bunch of copies of the same value
—as many copies as there are different subsets of size
. The number of subsets
of size
is
, the number of ways of choosing exactly
things out of
. Therefore, if we add things up size by size instead of subset by subset, we get
But this is exactly the expression for that we came up with earlier! And since we already know
this means that
too.
And that’s essentially it for the proof! I think there’s still more to say about the big picture, though. In a future post I’ll wrap things up and offer some reflections on why I find this interesting and where else it might lead.