Seeking a combinatorial proof $binom{n}{2k-1}=binom{n+2}{2k+1}-2timesbinom{n+1}{2k+1}+binom{n}{2k+1}$

I would appreciate if somebody could help me with the following problem

Q: Seeking a combinatorial proof that for all $n,kin mathbb{N}$, following holds


Kolmogorovs complexity proof

Prove that there is a constant c ∈ N such that, for all n ∈ N,
|C(sn) − C(sn+1)| ≤ c.

So what I know so far is the following:
We can define 2 functions f and g such that
for f:
C(sn) − C(sn+1) ≤ c.

and for g:
C(sn+1) − C(sn) ≤ c.

We also know that C(f(x))<=C(x)+c.
So cross comparing, we can use sn=f(sn+1)for the first part and sn+1=g(sn) for part 2, but Im having a hard time defining the 2 functions. Any guidance or tips?

Proof that a ring homomorphism between group algebras over a field has an eigenvalue

Let $G$ be a finite group, $k$ an algebraically closed field and $kG$ the group algebra of $G$ over $k$. Let $M$ be a module over $kG$. Let $V$ be an irreducible/simple $kG$-modules.

In the proofs of one version of schur’s lemma (for example, on Page 8 of this), it is often used that if $phi: V to V$ is a $kG$-homomorphism, then since the base field of $V$ is algebraically closed, as a linear mapping on $V, phi$ has an eigenvalue $a in k$.

I haven’t seen a proof of this, and I was wondering how to prove it. Also, what is meant when they say: “$phi$ is a $kG$-homomorphism”, do they just mean $phi$ is a module homomorphism between modules over the ring $kG$?

I looked at the wikipaedia page, and the proof for a normal linear map from $k^n$ to $k^n$ uses the fact that endomorphisms from vector spaces of finite dimension can be represented by a matrix on any basis and then you can use the characteristic polynomial.

I am trying to make a similar argument using the more abstract analogues of all these things. Obviously, the module homomorphism is the analogue of a linear map. Do I then show that $kG$ modules are finite dimension vector spaces over $k$, and hence $phi$ could be represented by some matrix with values in $k$, so it’s characteristic polynomial has a root?

Thanks for your help.

free 91 usd bonbon with proof🤑🤑

First register here use EMAIL wag phone number and then verify your email.

2nd step. Once ok na ang account. Login at makikita nyu to (see SS below) Click "Mobile Web"

reference request – Simple proof of formula related to asymptotics for eigenvalue problem for Laplacian

For the solution of
lambda u^epsilon – frac{epsilon^2}{2} Delta u^epsilon = 0 &text{in } Omega \
u^epsilon=1 & text{on } partial Omega

Varadhan proved that
$$lim_{epsilon to 0} – epsilon log u^epsilon = sqrt{2lambda} mathrm{dist} (x,partial Omega) $$

Is it possible to give a simple and straightforward proof of this result? Maybe relying (only or mostly) on tools like the maximum principle or the Green function of the Laplacian?

Solve for pi; showing a proof for logistic regression

I need help solving for π and am extremely confused! I know I have to use the base e function but confused how to get there!

Solve the equation for π to show π=exp⁡{B0+B1x1}/(1+exp⁡{B0+B1x1})

verification of “Concise Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis Based on Hadamard Product”

There is a circulating preprint:
Concise Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis Based on Hadamard Product.

Although, it’s short I was not able to follow the paper’s line of argument nor disprove their attempt.

Any insight?

complexity theory – Proof that a relation is in FP

How we can prove that the relation: $R= left{0,1right}^*times left{0,1right}^* in FP$
I understand that we need to find a polytime algorithm to decide whether $(x,y) in R$ since $(x,y)in R= left{0,1right}^*times left{0,1right}^*$
How can we find this? And this is enough to prove that $R in FP$?

bitcoin core – I can not find a clear mathematical proof method with details and example for “near to zero chance of generating the same pair key wallet”

Your privacy

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

real analysis – Elementary proof that an open subset of $Bbb{R}^n$ does not have measure zero?

There is an elementary theory of subsets of $Bbb{R}^n$ of measure zero, namely one defines the volume of a cube in the obvious way and one says that a subset $A$ has measure zero if given any $epsilon>0$ there exists a countable number of cubes that cover $A$ and such that the sum of the volumes of the cubes is $leq epsilon$.
One can show, with modest effort, that this notion is invariant under diffeomorphisms and thus leads to the notion of subsets of measure zero on a smooth manifold. This notion shows up in Sard’s Theorem which says that the set of critical values has measure zero.

Is there an elementary argument why non-empty open subsets do not have measure zero? Evidently it follows from standard measure theory, but for my topology course I would appreciate it if there was an elementary argument, but I can’t think of one and I can’t find one.

This is stated as an exercise in Lee’s book on smooth manifolds, but it’s not obvious to me. Note that even $n=1$ seems tricky.