2
$\begingroup$

I want to find out the result of the following summation if some (maybe big) positive integer $m$ is given. $$ \sum_{i=1}^{m}\binom{m}{i}\frac{(-1)^{i+1}}{2^i-1} $$ It doesn't seem much possible to get an easy result since the denominator is $2^i-1$ rather than $2^i$. I tried to use Wolfram Alpha to test some values of $m$'s, and the result was close to $\log_2m$, e.g., it took 8.335...... when $m=256$ and 5.355...... when $m=32$. This may not be coincidence and I wonder if there are any connections between them.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

By expanding $(2^i-1)^{-1}=\sum_{p=1}^\infty 2^{-ip}$, and summing over $i$, we find $$S_m=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\binom{m}{i}\frac{(-1)^{i+1}}{2^i-1}=\sum _{p=1}^{\infty } \left(1-\left(1-2^{-p}\right)^m\right).$$

This sum was considered in this post and in a publication On the expectation of the maximum of IID geometric random variables. The latter derives on page 140 an accurate expression in terms of the harmonic number $H_m$, $$S_m=\frac{H_{m}}{\ln 2}-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon_m,\;\;\text{with}\;\;|\epsilon_m|<0.0006,\;\;\text{for}\;\;m\geq 10.$$

In the plot I compare $S_m$ (gold) with $H_m/\ln 2 - 1/2$ (blue), the difference is indeed nearly invisible.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don't have access to the source material, but it would be good to clarify whether $\varepsilon_m\in o_m(1)$ or whether this is one of the 'fourier-esque' tiny sums that sometimes show up in sums similar to this, small but not actually tending to zero. $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2021 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ @StevenStadnicki --- the paper is on Researchgate (freely downloadable) --- I don't think $\epsilon_m$ vanishes in the limit $m\rightarrow\infty$. $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2021 at 17:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.