MHB Can the RMS-AM inequality prove the combinatorial coefficient inequality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saitama
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the inequality involving the sum of square roots of combinatorial coefficients from the expansion of (1+x)^n. The initial approach utilizes the RMS-AM inequality, leading to the expression that the sum is less than or equal to the square root of (2^n - 1) divided by n. Participants explore how to prove the relationship (2^n - 1)*n ≥ (2^n - 1)/n, confirming that n is a natural number greater than or equal to 1. The conversation concludes with one participant expressing gratitude for the assistance in reaching the solution. The discussion highlights the application of inequalities in combinatorial contexts.
Saitama
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
93
Problem:
Prove:
$$\sqrt{C_1}+\sqrt{C_2}+\sqrt{C_3}+...+\sqrt{C_n} \leq 2^{n-1}+\frac{n-1}{2}$$

where $C_0,C_1,C_2,...,C_n$ are combinatorial coefficients in the expansion of $(1+x)^n$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

Attempt:

I thought of using the RMS-AM inequality and got:

$$\sqrt{C_1}+\sqrt{C_2}+\sqrt{C_3}+...+\sqrt{C_n} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2^n-1}{n}}$$

Where I have used $C_1+C_2+C_3+...+C_n=2^n-1$.

But I don't see how to proceed from here.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
use
$$(2^n-1)*n\geq\frac{(2^n-1)}{n}$$
and then $$AM\geq GM$$
for $$2^n-1$$ and $$n$$
 
mathworker said:
use
$$(2^n-1)*n\geq\frac{(2^n-1)}{n}$$
and then $$AM\geq GM$$
for $$2^n-1$$ and $$n$$

Thanks mathworker!

I was able to reach the answer but how do you prove $(2^n-1)*n\geq\frac{(2^n-1)}{n}$? :confused:
 
as $$C_0,C_1,C_2,...,C_n$$ are combinatorial coeffs of $$(1+x)^n$$. n is certainly an integer which is $$\geq 1 $$.
the rest is obvious...:)
 
mathworker said:
as $$C_0,C_1,C_2,...,C_n$$ are combinatorial coeffs of $$(1+x)^n$$. n is certainly an integer which is $$\geq 1 $$.
the rest is obvious...:)

Understood, thanks a lot mathworker! :)
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
751
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K