A commenter reminds me to be clearer.
In a Bayesian context, the product of a binomial likelihood and a beta prior probability is
$$\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}n\\x\end{array}} \right)p_{}^x{(1 - p)^{n - x}}\frac{{\Gamma (a + b)}}{{\Gamma (a)\Gamma (b)}}p_{}^{a - 1}{(1 - {p_{}})^{b - 1}} % MathType!MTEF!2!1!+- % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaaeaaaaaaaaa8 % qadaqadaWdaeaafaqabeGabaaabaWdbiaad6gaa8aabaWdbiaadIha % aaaacaGLOaGaayzkaaGaamiCamaaDaaaleaaaeaacaWG4baaaOGaai % ikaiaaigdacqGHsislcaWGWbGaaiykamaaCaaaleqabaGaamOBaiab % gkHiTiaadIhaaaGcpaWaaSaaaeaacqqHtoWrcaGGOaGaamyyaiabgU % caRiaadkgacaGGPaaabaGaeu4KdCKaaiikaiaadggacaGGPaGaeu4K % dCKaaiikaiaadkgacaGGPaaaa8qacaWGWbWaa0baaSqaaaqaaiaadg % gacqGHsislcaaIXaaaaOGaaiikaiaaigdacqGHsislcaWGWbWaaSba % aSqaaaqabaGccaGGPaWaaWbaaSqabeaacaWGIbGaeyOeI0IaaGymaa % aaaaa!5A9D! $$
Ignoring the normalizing constant, and noting the correspondence between factorials and gamma values for integers, the posterior probability can be written as
$$\begin{array}{c}P\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{r}}p\end{array}\left| {x,n,a,b} \right.} \right) = \frac{{\Gamma (n)}}{{\Gamma (x)\Gamma (n - x)}}p_{}^x{(1 - p)^{n - x}}\frac{{\Gamma (a + b)}}{{\Gamma (a)\Gamma (b)}}p_{}^{a - 1}{(1 - {p_{}})^{b - 1}}\\\\ = \frac{{\Gamma (n + a + b)}}{{\Gamma (x + a)\Gamma (b + n - x)}}p_{}^{x + a - 1}{(1 - p)^{n - x + b - 1}}\end{array} % MathType!MTEF!2!1!+- % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGceaabbeaacaWGqb % WaaeWaaeaafaqaceqabaaabaGaamiCaaaadaabbaqaaiaadIhacaGG % SaGaamOBaiaacYcacaWGHbGaaiilaiaadkgaaiaawEa7aaGaayjkai % aawMcaaiabg2da9maalaaabaGaeu4KdCKaaiikaiaad6gacaGGPaaa % baGaeu4KdCKaaiikaiaadIhacaGGPaGaeu4KdCKaaiikaiaad6gacq % GHsislcaWG4bGaaiykaaaaqaaaaaaaaaWdbiaadchadaqhaaWcbaaa % baGaamiEaaaakiaacIcacaaIXaGaeyOeI0IaamiCaiaacMcadaahaa % Wcbeqaaiaad6gacqGHsislcaWG4baaaOWdamaalaaabaGaeu4KdCKa % aiikaiaadggacqGHRaWkcaWGIbGaaiykaaqaaiabfo5ahjaacIcaca % WGHbGaaiykaiabfo5ahjaacIcacaWGIbGaaiykaaaapeGaamiCamaa % DaaaleaaaeaacaWGHbGaeyOeI0IaaGymaaaakiaacIcacaaIXaGaey % OeI0IaamiCamaaBaaaleaaaeqaaOGaaiykamaaCaaaleqabaGaamOy % aiabgkHiTiaaigdaaaaakeaaaeaapaGaeyypa0ZaaSaaaeaacqqHto % WrcaGGOaGaamOBaiabgUcaRiaadggacqGHRaWkcaWGIbGaaiykaaqa % aiabfo5ahjaacIcacaWG4bGaey4kaSIaamyyaiaacMcacqqHtoWrca % GGOaGaamOyaiabgUcaRiaad6gacqGHsislcaWG4bGaaiykaaaapeGa % amiCamaaDaaaleaaaeaacaWG4bGaey4kaSIaamyyaiabgkHiTiaaig % daaaGccaGGOaGaaGymaiabgkHiTiaadchacaGGPaWaaWbaaSqabeaa % caWGUbGaeyOeI0IaamiEaiabgUcaRiaadkgacqGHsislcaaIXaaaaa % aaaa!9545! $$
what is the reason or better, derivation, for why the gamma coefficient in the second equation has that form? That is, why does one just add the parameter values, n, x, a, b ? One explanation I have seen is that one just recognizes the exponents in the second equation form a beta distribution, and simply forms the associated gamma coefficient with them. That is intuitive, but is there a derivation some where that shows why this is correct?