The coefficient counts the positions
C(n,k) is the number of ways the k successes can be arranged, and p^k(1−p)^{n−k} is the probability of any one such arrangement.
n independent trials, each succeeding with probability p. The number of successes has P(X = k) = C(n,k)p^k(1−p)^{n−k}, mean np and variance np(1−p).
Core ideas
Three assumptions define it. When they hold the formula applies exactly; when they do not it can be badly wrong.
C(n,k) is the number of ways the k successes can be arranged, and p^k(1−p)^{n−k} is the probability of any one such arrangement.
Write X as a sum of n indicators each with expectation p. No summation over the distribution is needed.
Fixed n, independent trials, constant p. Sampling without replacement violates the last two and needs the hypergeometric distribution instead.
The material
Derivation, moments, and where the assumptions fail.
A single experiment with two outcomes, success with probability p and failure with probability 1 − p. Its indicator has mean p and variance p(1−p).
If X counts the successes in n independent Bernoulli trials each with probability p, then P(X = k) = C(n,k)p^k(1−p)^{n−k} for k = 0, …, n.
One particular sequence with k successes and n − k failures has probability p^k(1−p)^{n−k}, by independence.
The number of such sequences is the number of ways to choose which k trials succeed, which is C(n,k).
The sequences are disjoint events, so the sum rule gives the product.
□
The distribution sums to 1 by the binomial theorem of “The Binomial Theorem” in Combinatorics and Counting: Σ_k C(n,k)p^k(1−p)^{n−k} = (p + (1−p))ⁿ = 1. That is the theorem doing genuine work, not an analogy.
E[X] = np and Var(X) = np(1−p).
Write X = I₁ + ⋯ + I_n with Iⱼ indicating success on trial j. Then E[X] = Σ E[Iⱼ] = np by linearity — no independence needed for this step.
For the variance, independence IS needed: Var(X) = Σ Var(Iⱼ) = np(1−p), since each indicator has variance p(1−p).
□
The variance is largest at p = 1/2, where it is n/4, and vanishes at p = 0 and p = 1. That is exactly right: a trial that always succeeds or always fails has no spread.
n = 10, p = 1/2. P(exactly 5 heads) = C(10,5)/2¹⁰ = 252/1024 ≈ 0.246. Slightly under a quarter, which surprises people who expect the most likely value to be likely.
A process produces 2% defectives. In a batch of 100, E[defects] = 2 and P(no defects) = 0.98¹⁰⁰ ≈ 0.133. So about one batch in eight is clean.
The failure mode is characteristic: the mean stays about right while the variance is wrong, usually understated. That makes the extremes far more likely than the model predicts, which is precisely where a wrong model does damage.
Interactive
Definition first, formula second
Method
Check the three assumptions before using the formula.
If the number of trials depends on the results, this is not a binomial — “The Geometric Distribution and Waiting Times” handles the commonest such case.
Sampling without replacement is the standard violation, and it matters when the sample is a substantial fraction of the population.
Same probability every trial. Drift breaks the model even when the trials are independent.
C(n,k)p^k(1−p)^{n−k} for a single k, or sum over a range for "at least" questions — often via the complement.
20 questions, 4 options each, answered at random. n = 20, p = 1/4.
The comparison with Chebyshev is worth noticing. The general bound is correct and roughly ten times too generous, which is the usual situation: distribution-free bounds are safe and loose, and knowing the distribution buys precision.
For each of: coin flips, cards drawn without replacement, defects in a production run, and rainy days in a week — say which of the three assumptions hold and whether the binomial applies.
Something to change about this lesson? Write it down, tick it off when it is handled, and export the list when you want to act on it. Kept in this browser only: nothing is sent anywhere, and nobody is notified.
No recommendations yet for this lesson.