For fixed $n\geq 1$, consider the sum $$S_n:=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{k^n}{e^k}.$$ If you compute this sum for some small values of $n$, you will see that it is remarkably close to $n!$. The fact that it is somehat close to $n!$ is not too surprising because $S_n$ "should" be similar to the following integral $$n! = \int_0^\infty \frac{x^n}{e^x}dx.$$ However, the precision of the approximation seems to be surprisingly good (check some small values on Wolfram Alpha and see for yourself!).

Question: Is there a good way to show that $S_n$ is bounded above by $(1+\varepsilon) n!$ for every $n\geq1$ where $\varepsilon$ is some explicit positive constant which is "close" to $0$?

After checking some small values of $n$, it appears that $n=3$ might be the worst value for an upper bound of this type. Note that, for many values of $n$ (perhaps for most $n$), it is actually the case that $S_n<n!$.

If you think of $S_n$ as a Riemann sum approximating the integral, then the $k$th summand is approximating the area under the curve between $x=k-1$ and $x=k$ by the value at the right endpoint of this interval (namely, by $\frac{k^n}{e^k}$). The function $\frac{x^n}{e^x}$ is increasing for $0\leq x<n$ and decreasing for $x>n$. Therefore, for $k\leq n$, the $k$th summand is overestimating the area and for $k\geq n+1$ it is underestimating it. Magically, it seems that the overestimating terms and the underestimating terms cancel out beautifully and give us a result which is really close to $n!$. Does anyone know whether this phenomenon occurs for all $n$ and whether there is a good reason why this would be occur?

By the way, there is a connection with Eulerian numbers here, if anyone is interested. It turns out that $$S_n = \frac{e\cdot \sum_{m=0}^{n-1}A(n,m)e^m}{(e-1)^{n+1}}$$ where $A(n,m)$ is the number of permutations of $1,\dots,n$ with exactly $m$ "ascents." Interestingly, $A(n,0)+A(n,1)+\cdots +A(n,n-1)=n!$ (since every permutation has some number of ascents) but this doesn't seem to be terribly helpful since there are these factors of $e$ and $e-1$ floating around everywhere.


For any $\alpha > 0$ we have that $\sum_{k\geq 1}e^{-\alpha k}=\frac{1}{e^{\alpha}-1}$, hence by differentiating both sides $n$ times with respect to $\alpha$ we get that $$ (-1)^n\sum_{k\geq 1} k^n e^{-\alpha k} = \frac{d^n}{d\alpha^n}\,\frac{1}{e^\alpha-1}=\frac{d^n}{d\alpha^n}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha}+\sum_{m\geq 1}\frac{B_m}{m!}\alpha^{m-1}\right] \tag{1}$$ hence: $$ (-1)^n \sum_{k\geq 1} k^n e^{-\alpha k} = \frac{n!(-1)^n}{\alpha^{n+1}}+\sum_{m\geq n+1}\frac{B_m}{m!}\cdot\frac{(m-1)!}{(m-n-1)!}\alpha^{m-n-1}\tag{2} $$ and by evaluating at $\alpha=1$ it comes the magic: $$ \sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{k^n}{e^k} = \color{red}{n!}+(-1)^n \sum_{m\geq n+1}\frac{B_m}{m(m-n-1)!}\tag{3} $$ The behaviour of Bernoulli numbers (I am going to talk about Bernoulli numbers with even index, since every Bernoulli number with odd index is zero, with the exception of $B_1$) is quite erratic: till $B_{12}$ they are all less than one in absolute value, then their absolute value starts growing pretty fast: $|B_{2 n}| \sim 4 \sqrt{\pi n} \left(\frac{n}{ \pi e} \right)^{2n}$ for large values of $n$. Since the remainder series in $(3)$ converges pretty fast and the first Bernoulli numbers are essentially negligible, for small values of $n$ (namely $n\leq 16$) $S_n$ and $n!$ are very close, as conjectured.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this! I had not come across the Bernoulli numbers, and so the second equality in (1) looks rather foreign to me. I will have to do some reading. $\endgroup$ – Jon Noel May 31 '17 at 23:27
  • $\begingroup$ A question: Assuming that Bernoulli numbers are all positive, your final formula seems to suggest that $S_n$ should be slightly smaller than $n!$ when $n$ is odd and slightly larger than $n!$ when $n$ is even. However, for $n=3$ and $n=7$ the sum is larger than $n!$ (and for $n=5$ it is smaller). $\endgroup$ – Jon Noel May 31 '17 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ @JonNoel: they are not positive: Bernoulli numbers with odd index are zero and Bernoulli numbers with even index have alternating signs. Everything is pretty well-known and easy to find, starting from Wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – Jack D'Aurizio May 31 '17 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ @JonNoel note the Bernoulli numbers are of an alternating sorts in themselves, so it kinda cancels. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art May 31 '17 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I have just read that $B_n$ is negative if $n$ is divisible by $4$. So, this partially explains some of the strange behaviour. $\endgroup$ – Jon Noel May 31 '17 at 23:32

By the Euler-Maclaurin formula,

$$S_n\approx n!-\frac1{2e}$$

You can get better approximations by taking more terms.

  • $\begingroup$ But considering the function is zero at both endpoints, is there another term apart from the remainder? $\endgroup$ – Chappers May 31 '17 at 23:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Chappers That's what I was wondering... but I wasn't sure. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art May 31 '17 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ The essence of the EML formula lies in Bernoulli numbers and polynomials, so why not employ them directly instead of relying on a uncertain approximation (uncertain due to the remainder term, of course)? $\endgroup$ – Jack D'Aurizio May 31 '17 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ @JackD'Aurizio Thinking the remainder is basically your answer. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art May 31 '17 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ @SimplyBeautifulArt: that's right :D $\endgroup$ – Jack D'Aurizio May 31 '17 at 23:12

$\newcommand{\bbx}[1]{\,\bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]{\displaystyle{#1}}\,} \newcommand{\braces}[1]{\left\lbrace\,{#1}\,\right\rbrace} \newcommand{\bracks}[1]{\left\lbrack\,{#1}\,\right\rbrack} \newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}} \newcommand{\ds}[1]{\displaystyle{#1}} \newcommand{\expo}[1]{\,\mathrm{e}^{#1}\,} \newcommand{\ic}{\mathrm{i}} \newcommand{\mc}[1]{\mathcal{#1}} \newcommand{\mrm}[1]{\mathrm{#1}} \newcommand{\pars}[1]{\left(\,{#1}\,\right)} \newcommand{\partiald}[3][]{\frac{\partial^{#1} #2}{\partial #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\root}[2][]{\,\sqrt[#1]{\,{#2}\,}\,} \newcommand{\totald}[3][]{\frac{\mathrm{d}^{#1} #2}{\mathrm{d} #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\verts}[1]{\left\vert\,{#1}\,\right\vert}$ \begin{align} \left.\sum_{k = 1}^{\infty}{k^{n} \over \expo{k}}\right\vert_{\ n\ \geq\ 0} & = -\delta_{n0} + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty}{k^{n} \over \expo{k}} = -\delta_{n0} + \int_{0}^{\infty}{k^{n} \over \expo{k}}\,\dd k + \left.{1 \over 2}{k^{n} \over \expo{k}}\right\vert_{\ k\ =\ 0} -2 \int_{0}^{\infty}{\Im\pars{\bracks{\ic x}^{n}/\expo{\ic x}} \over \expo{2\pi x} - 1}\,\dd x \\[5mm] & = -\,{1 \over 2}\,\delta_{n0} + n! - 2\left\{\begin{array}{lcl} \ds{-\pars{-1}^{n/2}\int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{n}\sin\pars{x} \over \expo{2\pi x} - 1}\,\dd x} & \mbox{if} & \ds{n}\ \mbox{is}\ even \\[3mm] \ds{\phantom{-\,}\pars{-1}^{\pars{n - 1}/2}\int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{n}\cos\pars{x} \over \expo{2\pi x} - 1}\,\dd x} & \mbox{if} & \ds{n}\ \mbox{is}\ odd \end{array}\right. \end{align}

$$ \left.\vphantom{\large A}n!\,\right\vert_{\ n\ \geq\ 0} = \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty}{k^{n} \over \expo{k}} + {1 \over 2}\,\delta_{n0} + 2\left\{\begin{array}{lcl} \ds{-\pars{-1}^{n/2}\int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{n}\sin\pars{x} \over \expo{2\pi x} - 1}\,\dd x} & \mbox{if} & \ds{n}\ \mbox{is}\ even \\[3mm] \ds{\phantom{-\,}\pars{-1}^{\pars{n - 1}/2}\int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{n}\cos\pars{x} \over \expo{2\pi x} - 1}\,\dd x} & \mbox{if} & \ds{n}\ \mbox{is}\ odd \end{array}\right. $$

Relative Error plot:

enter image description here

Absolute Error plot: It's worsening as $\ds{n > 16}$. Such behaviour is fully discussed in @Jack D'Aurizio answer.

enter image description here

  • $\begingroup$ What is $\mathfrak{I}$? $\endgroup$ – Jon Noel Jun 1 '17 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ $\Im z$ means "Imaginary part of $z$". $\endgroup$ – Felix Marin Jun 1 '17 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ Your 'remainder' can be calculated explicitly in terms of $\coth$ derivatives...so why not writing it down? $\endgroup$ – tired Jun 2 '17 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ @tired I guess it leads to the $\texttt{@Jack D'Aurizio}$ answer via the relation between $\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi x} - 1\right)^{-1}$ and the $\mathsf{Bernoulli\ numbers}$. So, I decided the best idea was to give $\texttt{@Jack D'Aurizio}$ answer as a reference. $\endgroup$ – Felix Marin Jun 2 '17 at 21:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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