Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This recent question contains two proofs that $$\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k} \frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)^2} = \frac{H_{n+1}}{n+1}.$$ One, by Antonio Vargas, uses a double integral. The other, by me, uses the absorption identity twice. I'd like to see a combinatorial proof, but I haven't managed to come up with one yet.

Some thoughts so far:

  1. Since the right-hand side is clearly not an integer for $n \geq 1$, we may need to interpret the identity as a probability. I would accept a combinatorial-based probability argument.
  2. Alternatively, we could turn both sides into integers by multiplying by $(n+1)!^2$. The new identity would be $$ \sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k} \frac{(-1)^k (n+1)!^2}{(k+1)^2} = (n+1)! \, n! \, H_{n+1}.$$ I would accept a combinatorial proof of this version of the identity.
  3. We need a combinatorial interpretation of the harmonic numbers. There are two in this paper by Benjamin, Preston, and Quinn. The first is that $n! \, H_n$ is the number of permutations on $n+1$ elements that contain exactly two cycles. That implies that $\dfrac{H_n}{n+1}$ (very close to the right-hand side of the identity we want to prove) is the probability that a random permutation on $n+1$ elements contains exactly two cycles. The second interpretation in the paper is that a random permutation on $n$ elements has, on average, $H_n$ cycles.
  4. We likely need inclusion/exclusion to interpret the left-hand side.
share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I found a probabilistic proof with a combinatorial flavor. I'll post it here so this question is officially answered, as well as for anyone who may be interested in seeing it.

Select points $(x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2), \ldots, (x_{n+1}, y_{n+1})$ independently from the bivariate uniform distribution on the unit square.

Each side is the probability that, for all $i \in \{2, 3, \ldots, n+1 \}$, either $x_1 < x_i$ or $y_1 < y_i$.

Left side: Let $A_i$ denote the event that either $x_1 < x_i$ or $y_1 < y_i$. We want $\cap_{i=2}^{n+1} A_i$, which can be calculated via inclusion-exclusion. To use inclusion-exclusion, we need the probability that $x_1 > x_i$ and $y_1 > y_i$ for any collection of $k$ of the points in $\{(x_2, y_2), \ldots, (x_{n+1}, y_{n+1})\}$. This is the probability that $x_1$ is the largest of $k+1$ randomly-chosen points and $y_1$ is the largest of $k+1$ randomly-chosen points. Since the $x_i$'s and $y_i$'s are independent, this is $\dfrac{1}{(k+1)^2}$. Therefore, one way of calculating the probability we're after is $$1 - \sum_{k=1}^n \binom{n}{k} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{(k+1)^2} = \sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k} \frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)^2}.$$

Right side: Condition on the position of $x_1$ in the ordering of the $x_i$'s from smallest to largest. The probability that $x_1$ is the smallest is $\dfrac{1}{n+1}$, the probability that $x_1$ is the second-smallest is $\dfrac{1}{n+1}$, and so forth, regardless of the position that $x_1$ takes in the ordering of the $x_i$'s. Then, given that $x_1$ is the $k+1$ smallest of the $x_i$'s, we must have $y_1 < y_j$ for each $j$ such that $x_j < x_1$. Since there are $k$ of these $y_j$, the probability that $y_1$ is smaller than all $k$ of them is $\dfrac{1}{k+1}$. Summing up, we get that the probability we're after is also $$\frac{1}{n+1} \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{1}{k+1} = \frac{H_{n+1}}{n+1}.$$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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