Timeline for Are there good bounds on binomial coefficients?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2016 at 16:02 | comment | added | Kevin O'Bryant | @kodlu It does, I'm sure, but I haven't gotten back to that application just yet. But it is definitely the type of result I was missing. | |
| May 1, 2016 at 16:01 | vote | accept | Kevin O'Bryant | ||
| Apr 29, 2016 at 23:46 | comment | added | kodlu | @KevinO'Bryant, does my answer address your specific question? | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 1:48 | comment | added | usul | Can you say more about your application? It seems like the kind of bound you want depends a lot on how you're using it. (And for instance if you care about sums of binomial coefficients, this may not be the best approach.) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 1:15 | comment | added | Kevin O'Bryant | Stirling's formula is indeed awesome, but it leaves one with $k^k$ and $(n-k)^{n-k}$ factors which are too cumbersome to work with in my application. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 4:42 | answer | added | kodlu | timeline score: 29 | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 4:41 | comment | added | Anthony Quas | So using Stirling's formula, you get an approximation to within a (small) constant simultaneously valid for all $n$ and $k$. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 4:26 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | How about using Stirling's approximation to factorial when k is a significant fraction of n? Gerhard "How Good Is Good Really?" Paseman, 2016.04.17. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 4:02 | history | asked | Kevin O'Bryant | CC BY-SA 3.0 |