3

Let $m\leq n$ be nonnegative integers and $x > 0$. I would like to find sufficient conditions on $m,n,x$ (as tight as possible) s.t.

$$\frac{ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=0}^m j\binom{n}{m-j}x^j }{ x \left( \sum_{j=0}^m \binom{n}{m-j} x^j \right)^2 } < 1$$

parsiad
  • 25,154

3 Answers3

4

So we have

$$ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=0}^m j\binom{n}{m-j}x^j < x \left( \sum_{j=0}^m \binom{n}{m-j} x^j \right)^2 $$

or

$$ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=0}^m j\binom{n}{m-j}x^j < x \left( \sum_{j=0}^m\sum_{k=0}^m \binom{n}{m-j} \binom{n}{m-k} x^j x^k\right) $$

or

$$ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=0}^m j\binom{n}{m-j}x^j < x\left( \sum_{j=0}^m\sum_{k=0}^m \binom{n}{m-j} \binom{n}{m-k} x^{j+k}\right) $$

On the right let $j=s+t$ and $k=t-s$ so $2t=j+k$ and $2s=j-k$.

$$ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=0}^m j\binom{n}{m-j}x^j < x\left( \sum_{t=0}^m\sum_{s=-m}^m \binom{n}{m-s-t} \binom{n}{m-t+s} x^{t}\right) $$

Moving the $x$ into the summation and noting that for $j=0$ the summation on the right vanishes,

$$ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m j\binom{n}{m-j}x^j < \left( \sum_{t=0}^m\sum_{s=-t}^t \binom{n}{m-s-t} \binom{n}{m-t+s} x^{t+1}\right) $$

Making the substitution $j=j-1$,

$$ \binom{n}{m} \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}(j+1)\binom{n}{m-j}x^{j+1} < \sum_{t=0}^m x^{t+1}\left( \sum_{s=-t}^t \binom{n}{m-s-t} \binom{n}{m-t+s}\right) $$

Linear independence of $x^j$ tells us that we require the following for all $j=0,...,m-1$

$$ \binom{n}{m}(j+1)\binom{n}{m-j} < \left( \sum_{s=-j}^j \binom{n}{m-s-j} \binom{n}{m-j+s}\right) $$

Rewriting this,

$$ \frac{n!}{m!(n-m)!}(j+1) \frac{n!}{(m-j)!(n-m+j)!} < \sum_{s=-j}^j \frac{n!}{(m-s-j)!(n-m+s+j)!}\frac{n!}{(m+s-j)!(n-m-s+j)!}$$

And this is exact. You can try to put this in MATLAB or excel to play around with various m and n.

One more simplification can be performed $$ \frac{(j+1)}{m!(n-m)!(m-j)!(n-m+j)!} < \sum_{s=-j}^j \frac{1}{(m-s-j)!(n-m+s+j)!(m+s-j)!(n-m-s+j)!}$$

  • I don't see how the first two lines are equivalent. I assume "or" is short for, "or, equivalently" (i.e. iff). – parsiad Aug 12 '14 at 22:32
  • Two aspects: The first inequality is of the form $0<P(x)$ with deg$P(x)=2m+1$, your last inequality with $x$ shows something different. What do you mean with linearity? Do you mean $P(x)>0$ iff all coefficients are $> 0$ ? – Markus Scheuer Aug 13 '14 at 07:02
  • Think about how you would multiply. two $m-$nomial terms (two summations). A single summation squared is a term by term multiplication in a double summation. – InfiniteElementMethod Aug 14 '14 at 18:46
  • Not linearity, linear independence. By that I mean the linear independence of polynomials $x^j$ for different j. – InfiniteElementMethod Aug 14 '14 at 18:48
  • @InfiniteDifferenceMethod: Would you agree, that your last inequality with $x$ is of form $0 < Q(x)$ with $Q(x)$ a polynomial in $x$ of degree $m+1$? But the degree of $P(x)$ of your first inequality, written as $0 < P(x)$ is $2m+1$. Isn't it a discrepancy? – Markus Scheuer Aug 14 '14 at 19:37
  • It's trivially true for the degrees greater than $m$ since $0<x$ implies that it holds for those terms. So we drop them. – InfiniteElementMethod Aug 14 '14 at 19:42
2

Note: This is only a rudimentary answer to your question together with some additional information at the end.

A short overview:

  • We transform the inequality to gain some insight in the structure
  • Results for a few special values
  • Some references related to this question

First step Transformation of the inequality

The idea is to transform the inequality so that we can better see, which parts are responsible to invalidate it.

\begin{align*} 0<x\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m-j}x^{j}\right)^2-\binom{n}{m}\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m-j}jx^j\tag{1} \end{align*}

Regrettably we hardly have a chance to find a closed formula for \begin{align*} \sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{j}x^j \qquad 0\leq m\leq n\tag{2} \end{align*} since as you can read e.g. in the second edition of

Concrete Mathematics from Graham, Knuth and Patashnik

There is no closed form for the partial sum of a row of Pascal's triangle.

But we find another interesting hint in section 5.1 for a closed formula in case (2) is multiplied by it's distance to the center:

\begin{align*} \sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{j}\left(\frac{n}{2}-j\right)=\frac{m+1}{2}\binom{n}{m+1} \tag{3} \end{align*}

We use a similar technique to transform the inequality and so unify the sums from (1).

Let \begin{align*} A_{m,n}(x)&=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}\qquad 1\leq m\leq n \end{align*} then \begin{align*} \sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m-j}x^{j}&=\binom{n-1}{m}+(1+x)A_{m,n}(x)\\ \sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m-j}jx^{j}&=m\binom{n-1}{m}+\left(m-(n-m)\frac{1}{x}\right)A_{m,n}(x)\\ \end{align*}

Note: We use the convention, that the empty sum and binomial coefficient $\binom{n}{j}$ with $n<0$ is considered to be $0$.

The statement above is valid since \begin{align*} \sum_{j=0}^{m}&\binom{n}{m-j}x^{j}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{j}x^{m-j}\\ &=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j-1}x^{m-j}\\ &=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}+\frac{1}{x}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}\\ &=\binom{n-1}{m}+(1+x)A_{m,n}(x)\\ \end{align*}

and \begin{align*} \sum_{j=0}^{m}&\binom{n}{m-j}jx^{j}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{j}(m-j)x^{m-j}\\ &=m\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{j}x^{m-j}-\sum_{j=1}^{m}\binom{n}{j}jx^{m-j}\\ &=m\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{j}x^{m-j}-n\sum_{j=1}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j-1}x^{m-j}\\ &=m\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j-1}x^{m-j}\right)\\ &\qquad-\frac{n}{x}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}\\ &=m\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}+\frac{1}{x}\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}\right)\\ &\qquad-\frac{n}{x}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\binom{n-1}{j}x^{m-j}\\ &=m\binom{n-1}{m}+\left(m-(n-m)\frac{1}{x}\right)A_{m,n}(x)\\ \end{align*}

Now putting all together gives

\begin{align*} 0<&x\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m-j}x^{j}\right)^2-\binom{n}{m}\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m-j}jx^j\\ &=x\left(\binom{n-1}{m}+\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)A_{m,n}(x)\right)^2\\ &\qquad-\binom{n}{m}\left(m\binom{n-1}{m}+\left(m-(n-m)\frac{1}{x}\right)A_{m,n}(x)\right)\\ \end{align*}

And after some rearrangement we finally get the

Resulting inequality: \begin{align*} A_{m,n}&=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\binom{n}{m-j}x^{m-j}\qquad 1\leq m \leq n,\quad x> 0\\ \\ 0<&(1+x)^2A_{m,n}^2(x)\\ &+\binom{n-1}{m}\left(2x^2+\left(2-\frac{nm}{n-m}\right)x+n\right)A_{m,n}(x)\\ &+\binom{n-1}{m}^2x\left(x-\frac{nm}{n-m}\right)\\ \end{align*}

Observe, that the only factors which could become negative in the equality above are \begin{align*} 2x^2+\left(2-\frac{nm}{n-m}\right)x+n\qquad\text{and}\qquad x-\frac{nm}{n-m}\tag{4} \end{align*} We see, that in case of fixed $x$ and growing $n$ the terms become more and more negative as $m$ is approaching $n$. But we also know that $A_{m,n}^2$ grows very fast, when $m$ approaches $n$. This is immediately clear if we consider $$\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}=2^n\qquad\text{and}\qquad\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{2m+1}{j}=\frac{1}{2}2^{2m+1}$$

So, a further elaboration could have a look at the zeroes of (4) and try to analyse the resulting regions with negative values together with the growing behaviour of $A_{m,n}$.

Step 2: Some special values

Which I did only for curiosity to get a first impression of the inequality. In the following we always assume $x>0$.

m=0 valid for $n\geq0$

You can see immediately that the inequality (1) is valid for all $x>0$ and $n\geq0$.

m=1 valid for $n>0$

This leads to the inequality $(n+x)^2-n>0$ which is also valid for all $n>0$.

m=2 valid for $n>4$

With the help of Wolfram Alpha we find $n\geq 4.69858$ and $x>0$.

The corresponding inequality is

$$x^4+2nx^3+n(2n-1)x^2+n^2(n-1)x+\frac{1}{4}n^2(n-1)^2>0$$

m=n valid for $n>0$.

with inequality

$$(x+1)^{n+1}-n>0$$

m=n-1 valid for $n>0$.

with inequality

$$\frac{1}{x}\left((x+1)^{n}-1\right)^2-\frac{n}{x}\left((x+1)^{n-1}\left(nx+(x+1)\right)+1\right)>0$$

Step 3: Some additional info

Here is some related information which may be helpful when estimating the sum $\sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{n}{m}$ for large values of $n$.

Markus Scheuer
  • 108,315
  • @par: Thanks for accepting my answer and so granting the bounty. I'll keep this question in mind and will inform you, if something interesting comes up. Best regards. – Markus Scheuer Aug 18 '14 at 18:03
1

For what it's worth, Mathematica gives a closed form in terms of the hypergeometric functions, which may or may not be helpful if you are proficient with them:

$$ \sum_{j=0}^m j \binom{n}{m-j} x^j = x \binom{n}{m-1} {}_2F_1(2, 1-m; -m+n+2; -x) $$

$$ \sum_{j=0}^m x^j \binom{n}{m-j} = \binom{n}{m} {}_2F_1 (1, -m; -m+n+1; -x) $$

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+j+binomial%28n%2C+m-j%29+x%5Ej+for+j%3D0..m

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+binomial%28n%2C+m-j%29+x%5Ej+for+j%3D0..m

parsiad
  • 25,154
  • I don't see the connection with the question. Any hints how the hypergeometric functions could be applied to get sufficient conditions for the parameter? Best regards – Markus Scheuer Aug 12 '14 at 06:53
  • None; the hypergeometric functions are not things I know much about. But since there are people who do know a lot about such things, I thought it reasonable to put this result up to give them a starting point. –  Aug 12 '14 at 08:58
  • Ok. I see your point and you're right. – Markus Scheuer Aug 12 '14 at 09:42