How does the following definition of contruction/destruction operators for the Fock state of Fermions account for the anti-symmetrization? Consider the following definitions of the creation and destruction operators for a Fermionic Fock state:
$$\hat a^{\dagger}_n \left|N_0 N_1...\right.\rangle = (-1)^{\sum_{k<n}N_k}(1-N_n) \left|N_0 N_1...(N_n+1)...\right.\rangle $$
$$\hat a_n \left|N_0 N_1...\right.\rangle = (-1)^{\sum_{k<n}N_k} N_n \left|N_0 N_1...(N_n-1)...\right.\rangle $$
I understand how the prefactors of $(1-N_n)$ and $N_n$ come because of the fact that the $N_i$s can either be just $0$ or $1$ in case of Fermions. but I do not know why the $(-1)^{\sum_{k<n}N_k}$ factors also come and if they somehow account for the minus that comes from anti-symmetrization.
For instance if I look at the action of the creation operator on the following Fock state as:
$$\hat a^{\dagger}_3 \left|1 0 0...\right.\rangle = - \left|1 0 1...\right.\rangle$$
What is the signifcance of the minus sign that comes on the right hand side of the above equation?
 A: $\newcommand{\bl}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}} 
\newcommand{\e}{\bl=}
\newcommand{\p}{\bl+}
\newcommand{\m}{\bl-}
\newcommand{\gr}{\bl>}
\newcommand{\les}{\bl<}
\newcommand{\greq}{\bl\ge}
\newcommand{\leseq}{\bl\le}
\newcommand{\plr}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\blr}[1]{\left[#1\right]}
\newcommand{\clr}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\vlr}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert}
\newcommand{\Vlr}[1]{\left\Vert#1\right\Vert}
\newcommand{\lara}[1]{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\lav}[1]{\left\langle#1\right|}
\newcommand{\vra}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\lavra}[2]{\left\langle#1|#2\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\lavvra}[3]{\left\langle#1\right|#2\left|#3\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\vp}{\vphantom{\dfrac{a}{b}}}
\newcommand{\Vp}[1]{\vphantom{#1}}
\newcommand{\hp}[1]{\hphantom{#1}} 
\newcommand{\x}{\bl\times}
\newcommand{\ox}{\bl\otimes}
\newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}}
\newcommand{\tl}[1]{\tag{#1}\label{#1}}
$
The creation operator $\:\hat a^\dagger_i\:$ increases the occupation number of the level $\:i\:$ by $\:1\:$. If the state $\:i\:$ was empty then  [see equations \eqref{ft-01}, \eqref{ft-02} in the Footnote]
\begin{align}
&\hat a^\dagger_i\vra{n_1,n_2,\cdots,0_i,\cdots}  \e 
\nonumber\\
 &\e \!\!\!\overbrace{\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}}^{\plr{\m 1}^{n_1}(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}\hat a^\dagger_i}\!\!\!(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}\cdots(\hat a^\dagger_i)^0\cdots\vra 0 
\nonumber\\
&\e \plr{\m 1}^{n_1}(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}\!\!\!\overbrace{\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}}^{\plr{\m 1}^{n_2}(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}\hat a^\dagger_i}\!\!\!(\hat a^\dagger_3)^{n_3}\cdots(\hat a^\dagger_i)^0\cdots\vra 0
\nonumber\\
& \e \plr{\m 1}^{n_1\p n_2}(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}\!\!\overbrace{\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_3)^{n_3}}^{\plr{\m 1}^{n_3}(\hat a^\dagger_3)^{n_3}\hat a^\dagger_i}\!\!(\hat a^\dagger_4)^{n_4}\cdots(\hat a^\dagger_i)^0\cdots\vra 0
\nonumber\\
& \e \plr{\m 1}^{n_1\p n_2\p n_3}(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}(\hat a^\dagger_3)^{n_3}\overbrace{\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_4)^{n_4}}^{\plr{\m 1}^{n_4}\cdots}\cdots(\hat a^\dagger_i)^0\cdots\vra 0
\nonumber\\
&\e \plr{\m 1}^{n_1\p n_2\p n_3\p n_4}\cdots\cdots
\tl{01}
\end{align}
that is
\begin{align}
\hat a^\dagger_i\vra{n_1,n_2,\cdots,0_i,\cdots}&\e\plr{\m 1}^{\sum\limits_{k\e 1}^{k\e i\m 1}\!\!n_k}(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}\cdots(\hat a^\dagger_i)\cdots\vra 0 
\nonumber\\
& \e \plr{\m 1}^{\sum\limits_{k\e 1}^{k\e i\m 1}\!\!n_k}\vra{n_1,n_2,\cdots,1_i,\cdots}
\tl{02}
\end{align}
If, on the other hand, the level $\:i\:$ was already occupied then the application of $\:\hat a^\dagger_i\:$ destroys the state vector:
\begin{equation}
\hat a^\dagger_i\vra{n_1,n_2,\cdots,1_i,\cdots} \e \plr{\m 1}^{\sum\limits_{k\e 1}^{k\e i\m 1}\!\!n_k}(\hat a^\dagger_1)^{n_1}(\hat a^\dagger_2)^{n_2}\cdots(\hat a^\dagger_i)^2\cdots\vra 0\e 0. 
\tl{03}
\end{equation}
Note that \eqref{02} contains a phase factor $\:(\m 1)^{\sum\limits_{k\e 1}^{k\e i\m 1}\!\!n_k}\:$ which has no physical
significance as it depends on the labelling of the states $\:i\:$ which is arbitrary.

Footnote
Since $\:\hat a^\dagger_i\hat a^\dagger_j\e \m\hat a^\dagger_j\hat a^\dagger_i\:$ we have
\begin{align}
&\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j} \e \plr{\hat a^\dagger_i\hat a^\dagger_j}(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j\m 1}\e \plr{\m\hat a^\dagger_j\hat a^\dagger_i}(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j\m 1}\e 
\nonumber\\
&\plr{\m 1}\hat a^\dagger_j\!\!\overbrace{\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j\m 1}}^{\plr{\m 1}\hat a^\dagger_j\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j\m 2}}\!\!\!\e \plr{\m 1}^2(\hat a^\dagger_j)^2\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j\m 2}\e \cdots\e
\nonumber\\
& \plr{\m 1}^m(\hat a^\dagger_j)^m\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j\m m}\e\cdots\e \plr{\m 1}^{n_j}(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j}\hat a^\dagger_i
\tl{ft-01}
\end{align}
that is
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\:\:\hat a^\dagger_i(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j}\e\plr{\m 1}^{n_j}(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j}\hat a^\dagger_i\:\:\vp}
\tl{ft-02}
\end{equation}
i.e. the operators $\:\hat a^\dagger_i\:$ and $\:(\hat a^\dagger_j)^{n_j}\:$ commute (anticommute) if $\:n_j\:$ is even (odd).
