How can I show that $ \sum_{k=0}^{m}\binom{n}{k} \leq (n+1)^m$ for $m \leq n $?
Asked
Active
Viewed 48 times
-1
-
Welcome to Math.SE! Please use MathJax. For some basic information about writing math at this site see e.g. basic help on MathJax notation, MathJax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Nov 26 '20 at 21:45
1 Answers
1
$(n+1)^m =\sum_{k=0}^m \binom{m}{k}n^k $ so if $n^k\binom{m}{k} \ge \binom{n}{k} $ we are done.
$\begin{array}\\ \binom{m}{k} &=\dfrac{m!}{k!(m-k)!}\\ &=\dfrac{\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}(m-j)}{k!}\\ \dfrac{n^k\binom{m}{k}}{\binom{n}{k}} &=\dfrac{n^k\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}(m-j)}{\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}(n-j)}\\ &\ge\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}(m-j) \qquad\text{since } n^k \ge \prod_{j=0}^{k-1}(n-j)\\ &\ge 1\\ \end{array} $

marty cohen
- 107,799
-
1I do not know why this question has been closed since the summation is up to $m$ and not $n$. Interested by https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3912163/sum-of-binomial-coefficients-so-that-the-sum-equals-n-choose-n-2/3912290#3912290 I wonder if you are aware fo a "simple" upperbound in order to possibly improve my estimate or at least derive the asymptotics. Thank you. – Claude Leibovici Nov 27 '20 at 07:04
-
I agree. I find it surprising the number of questions which are incorrectly closed. So I voted to reopen. At least it turns out that there is a simple answer. – marty cohen Nov 27 '20 at 11:37
-
I found a very interesting approximation in https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/103280/asymptotics-for-a-partial-sum-of-binomial-coefficients which allows a good approximation (if you have time to waste, have a look at my last update in https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3912163/sum-of-binomial-coefficients-so-that-the-sum-equals-n-choose-n-2/3912290#3912290 ) – Claude Leibovici Nov 28 '20 at 09:58