http://www.jstor.org/view/00029890/di991727/99p0111d/0
What I'm wondering is, is there a theorem of the form, "Whenever an
expression like this is always an integer, then there is always an
expression for it in terms of binomial coefficients and polynomials
in m and n that makes it obvious that it is an integer"? For a slightly
different example of the kind of thing I'm after, the Catalan number
(2n)!/n!(n+1)! is not obviously an integer when you write it in that
form, but (2n)!/n!(n+1)! = (2n choose n) - (2n choose n-1), which is
obviously an integer. Patruno's method does not seem to answer my
question directly.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
Thanks...that's certainly a relevant paper, but I'm not convinced that it
answers my question. I'm asking for something weaker than a "combinatorial
interpretation," which is a term usually reserved for a *natural* meaning
for an integer. Even for the relatively trivial case of the Catalan
numbers, the equation (2n)!/n!(n+1)! = (2n choose n) - (2n choose n-1)
would not be considered to give a "combinatorial interpretation" of the
number until you did some extra work to describe a natural set of size
(2n choose n) and a natural subset of size (2n choose n-1). But all I'm
asking for is the expression in terms of binomial coefficients and other
"obviously integral" quantities like polynomials in m and n with integer
coefficients.
For example, Gessel and Xin quote the recurrence
sum_n 2^(p-2n) (p choose 2n) T(m,n) = T(m,m+p)
where T(m,n) = (2n)!(2m)!/2(n!m!(n+m)!), which makes it obvious that
T(m,n) is an integer. For this particular case, the above recurrence
is pretty close to a positive answer to my question (although the form
of the expression is not quite what I had naively had in mind, suggesting
that it may be a little tricky to properly formulate my question precisely).
So it seems to me that (a suitably cleaned-up version of) my original
question might still be a tractable one.