Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I want to prove that for $k>0$:

$ 2^k \geq \frac{-1}{\log_2(1-\frac{1}{2^k})}$

I've plotted both functions and it seems to be the case for k>0.

In fact, it would also be nice to see that:

$ \frac{-1}{\log_2(1-\frac{1}{2^k})} \geq 2^{k-1}$

Thank you!

share|cite|improve this question
Are the logs $\log_2$ instead of $log2$? – Anon Feb 1 '13 at 2:08
Yes, sorry, this is $\log_2$. I've corrected the question. – user60502 Feb 1 '13 at 2:09
$$ \log_2 \left({ \frac{2^k - 1}{2^k} }\right) = \log_2 \left( {2^k - 1} \right) - \log_2 \left(2^k\right)$$ – hjpotter92 Feb 1 '13 at 2:24
Thank you "Back in a Flash", the second term reduces to k. But now what? – user60502 Feb 1 '13 at 2:28
I reached this: $\log_2(2^k-1)^{2k} \ge \log_2 2^{k2^k} -1$ – user60502 Feb 1 '13 at 2:30

With $t = 1 - 2^{-k}$ (so $0 < t < 1$ for $k > 0$), your inequality becomes $1/(1-t) \ge -1/\log_2(t)$, or $\log_2(t) \le -1+t$. In fact $\log_2(t) = \ln(t)/\ln(2)$ and $\ln(2) < 1$ so $\log_2(t) < \ln(t)$, and $\ln(t) \le -1+t$.

Your "it would be nice" is not true for $0 < k < 1$. It is true for $k \ge 1$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Excellent! Thank you Robert! How trivial it seems when one sees the solution :-( – user60502 Feb 1 '13 at 2:36

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.