Is $1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x$
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If $x ge 5$, is $1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x$
I believe the answer is yes.
Here is my thinking:
(1) $log_2{5} > 2.32 > 2.284 > 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5}$
(2) Assume up to $x$ that $log_2 x > sumlimits_{i le x}frac{1}{i}$
(3) $(x+1)^{x+1} > {{x+1}choose{x+1}}x^{x+1} + {{x+1}choose{x}}x^x = x^{x+1} + (x+1)x^x = 2x^{x+1} + x^x > 2(x^{x+1})$
(4) $(x+1)log_2left(frac{x+1}{x}right) > 1$
(5) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) > frac{1}{x+1}$
(6) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) + log_2(x) = log_2(x+1) > sumlimits_{i le x+1}frac{1}{i}$
proof-verification inequality logarithms harmonic-numbers
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If $x ge 5$, is $1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x$
I believe the answer is yes.
Here is my thinking:
(1) $log_2{5} > 2.32 > 2.284 > 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5}$
(2) Assume up to $x$ that $log_2 x > sumlimits_{i le x}frac{1}{i}$
(3) $(x+1)^{x+1} > {{x+1}choose{x+1}}x^{x+1} + {{x+1}choose{x}}x^x = x^{x+1} + (x+1)x^x = 2x^{x+1} + x^x > 2(x^{x+1})$
(4) $(x+1)log_2left(frac{x+1}{x}right) > 1$
(5) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) > frac{1}{x+1}$
(6) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) + log_2(x) = log_2(x+1) > sumlimits_{i le x+1}frac{1}{i}$
proof-verification inequality logarithms harmonic-numbers
See this Wikipedia article, then consider $ln x= ln 2cdot log_2 x$
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 7:59
Thanks, Arthur but I'm not clear if you are saying it is true or false. $ln 2 < 0.694$ so that $ln 2 < log_2 x$. The article shows that $ln x < 1 + 1/2 + dots + 1/x$. I am not clear what that says about my question.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:07
It also shows that $1+ln xgeq1+1/2+cdots$.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:10
ok. Now I get it. You are saying it is true because for $x > 11, log_2 x > (ln x)frac{10}{7} > ln x + 1$ Thanks.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:17
And then you can check by hand which cases $xleq 11$ it is true for as well. Exactly.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:23
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If $x ge 5$, is $1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x$
I believe the answer is yes.
Here is my thinking:
(1) $log_2{5} > 2.32 > 2.284 > 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5}$
(2) Assume up to $x$ that $log_2 x > sumlimits_{i le x}frac{1}{i}$
(3) $(x+1)^{x+1} > {{x+1}choose{x+1}}x^{x+1} + {{x+1}choose{x}}x^x = x^{x+1} + (x+1)x^x = 2x^{x+1} + x^x > 2(x^{x+1})$
(4) $(x+1)log_2left(frac{x+1}{x}right) > 1$
(5) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) > frac{1}{x+1}$
(6) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) + log_2(x) = log_2(x+1) > sumlimits_{i le x+1}frac{1}{i}$
proof-verification inequality logarithms harmonic-numbers
If $x ge 5$, is $1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x$
I believe the answer is yes.
Here is my thinking:
(1) $log_2{5} > 2.32 > 2.284 > 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5}$
(2) Assume up to $x$ that $log_2 x > sumlimits_{i le x}frac{1}{i}$
(3) $(x+1)^{x+1} > {{x+1}choose{x+1}}x^{x+1} + {{x+1}choose{x}}x^x = x^{x+1} + (x+1)x^x = 2x^{x+1} + x^x > 2(x^{x+1})$
(4) $(x+1)log_2left(frac{x+1}{x}right) > 1$
(5) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) > frac{1}{x+1}$
(6) $log_2(x+1) - log_2(x) + log_2(x) = log_2(x+1) > sumlimits_{i le x+1}frac{1}{i}$
proof-verification inequality logarithms harmonic-numbers
proof-verification inequality logarithms harmonic-numbers
asked Nov 23 at 7:55
Larry Freeman
3,24721239
3,24721239
See this Wikipedia article, then consider $ln x= ln 2cdot log_2 x$
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 7:59
Thanks, Arthur but I'm not clear if you are saying it is true or false. $ln 2 < 0.694$ so that $ln 2 < log_2 x$. The article shows that $ln x < 1 + 1/2 + dots + 1/x$. I am not clear what that says about my question.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:07
It also shows that $1+ln xgeq1+1/2+cdots$.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:10
ok. Now I get it. You are saying it is true because for $x > 11, log_2 x > (ln x)frac{10}{7} > ln x + 1$ Thanks.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:17
And then you can check by hand which cases $xleq 11$ it is true for as well. Exactly.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:23
add a comment |
See this Wikipedia article, then consider $ln x= ln 2cdot log_2 x$
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 7:59
Thanks, Arthur but I'm not clear if you are saying it is true or false. $ln 2 < 0.694$ so that $ln 2 < log_2 x$. The article shows that $ln x < 1 + 1/2 + dots + 1/x$. I am not clear what that says about my question.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:07
It also shows that $1+ln xgeq1+1/2+cdots$.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:10
ok. Now I get it. You are saying it is true because for $x > 11, log_2 x > (ln x)frac{10}{7} > ln x + 1$ Thanks.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:17
And then you can check by hand which cases $xleq 11$ it is true for as well. Exactly.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:23
See this Wikipedia article, then consider $ln x= ln 2cdot log_2 x$
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 7:59
See this Wikipedia article, then consider $ln x= ln 2cdot log_2 x$
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 7:59
Thanks, Arthur but I'm not clear if you are saying it is true or false. $ln 2 < 0.694$ so that $ln 2 < log_2 x$. The article shows that $ln x < 1 + 1/2 + dots + 1/x$. I am not clear what that says about my question.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:07
Thanks, Arthur but I'm not clear if you are saying it is true or false. $ln 2 < 0.694$ so that $ln 2 < log_2 x$. The article shows that $ln x < 1 + 1/2 + dots + 1/x$. I am not clear what that says about my question.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:07
It also shows that $1+ln xgeq1+1/2+cdots$.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:10
It also shows that $1+ln xgeq1+1/2+cdots$.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:10
ok. Now I get it. You are saying it is true because for $x > 11, log_2 x > (ln x)frac{10}{7} > ln x + 1$ Thanks.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:17
ok. Now I get it. You are saying it is true because for $x > 11, log_2 x > (ln x)frac{10}{7} > ln x + 1$ Thanks.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:17
And then you can check by hand which cases $xleq 11$ it is true for as well. Exactly.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:23
And then you can check by hand which cases $xleq 11$ it is true for as well. Exactly.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:23
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
We have that
$$1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x iff 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < frac{ln x}{ln 2}$$
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right)< ln x$$
then recall that by harmonic series
$$sum_{k=1}^x frac1k simln x+gamma+frac1{2x}$$
then
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right) sim ln 2ln x+gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}stackrel{?}<ln x$$
$$(1-ln 2)ln x> gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}$$
which is true for $x$ sufficiently large.
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
We can use induction as well. If we assume that it's true for $n$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+...+frac{1}{n}+frac{1}{n+1}<log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1}$$
So we need to prove that
$$log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1} < log_2(n+1)$$
$$frac{1}{n+1}< log_2left(1+frac{1}{n}right)$$
$$2^{frac{1}{n+1}}<1+frac{1}{n}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n+1}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right) left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$$
And it's true, because
$$1+frac{1}{n}>1$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality:
$$left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n geq 1+n frac{1}{n}=2$$
So we just need to find a good starting $n$. Let's check it for $n=6$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}+frac{1}{6}<log_2(6)$$
$$frac{9}{20}<log_2({6/4})$$
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<frac{6}{4}$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality,
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<1+frac{9}{20}<1+frac{10}{20}=frac{6}{4}$$
So it's true $forall ngeq 6 land n in mathbb{N}$ (it's true for $n=5$ as well, but Bernoulli is not helping in that case).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Yes because $H_n-log n$ is bounded by $1$ and $log_2n$ is a multiple of $log n$.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
We have that
$$1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x iff 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < frac{ln x}{ln 2}$$
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right)< ln x$$
then recall that by harmonic series
$$sum_{k=1}^x frac1k simln x+gamma+frac1{2x}$$
then
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right) sim ln 2ln x+gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}stackrel{?}<ln x$$
$$(1-ln 2)ln x> gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}$$
which is true for $x$ sufficiently large.
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
We have that
$$1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x iff 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < frac{ln x}{ln 2}$$
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right)< ln x$$
then recall that by harmonic series
$$sum_{k=1}^x frac1k simln x+gamma+frac1{2x}$$
then
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right) sim ln 2ln x+gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}stackrel{?}<ln x$$
$$(1-ln 2)ln x> gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}$$
which is true for $x$ sufficiently large.
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
We have that
$$1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x iff 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < frac{ln x}{ln 2}$$
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right)< ln x$$
then recall that by harmonic series
$$sum_{k=1}^x frac1k simln x+gamma+frac1{2x}$$
then
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right) sim ln 2ln x+gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}stackrel{?}<ln x$$
$$(1-ln 2)ln x> gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}$$
which is true for $x$ sufficiently large.
We have that
$$1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < log_2 x iff 1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} < frac{ln x}{ln 2}$$
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right)< ln x$$
then recall that by harmonic series
$$sum_{k=1}^x frac1k simln x+gamma+frac1{2x}$$
then
$$ln 2left(1 + frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + dots + frac{1}{x} right) sim ln 2ln x+gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}stackrel{?}<ln x$$
$$(1-ln 2)ln x> gammaln 2+frac{ln 2}{2x}$$
which is true for $x$ sufficiently large.
edited Nov 23 at 9:46
answered Nov 23 at 8:42
gimusi
88.2k74394
88.2k74394
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
add a comment |
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
After "harmonic series" your summation has an error (the summand should be $1/k$)
– YiFan
Nov 23 at 9:29
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
@YiFan Opssss...yes of course I fix the typo. Thanks!
– gimusi
Nov 23 at 9:45
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
We can use induction as well. If we assume that it's true for $n$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+...+frac{1}{n}+frac{1}{n+1}<log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1}$$
So we need to prove that
$$log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1} < log_2(n+1)$$
$$frac{1}{n+1}< log_2left(1+frac{1}{n}right)$$
$$2^{frac{1}{n+1}}<1+frac{1}{n}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n+1}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right) left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$$
And it's true, because
$$1+frac{1}{n}>1$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality:
$$left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n geq 1+n frac{1}{n}=2$$
So we just need to find a good starting $n$. Let's check it for $n=6$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}+frac{1}{6}<log_2(6)$$
$$frac{9}{20}<log_2({6/4})$$
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<frac{6}{4}$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality,
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<1+frac{9}{20}<1+frac{10}{20}=frac{6}{4}$$
So it's true $forall ngeq 6 land n in mathbb{N}$ (it's true for $n=5$ as well, but Bernoulli is not helping in that case).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
We can use induction as well. If we assume that it's true for $n$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+...+frac{1}{n}+frac{1}{n+1}<log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1}$$
So we need to prove that
$$log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1} < log_2(n+1)$$
$$frac{1}{n+1}< log_2left(1+frac{1}{n}right)$$
$$2^{frac{1}{n+1}}<1+frac{1}{n}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n+1}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right) left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$$
And it's true, because
$$1+frac{1}{n}>1$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality:
$$left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n geq 1+n frac{1}{n}=2$$
So we just need to find a good starting $n$. Let's check it for $n=6$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}+frac{1}{6}<log_2(6)$$
$$frac{9}{20}<log_2({6/4})$$
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<frac{6}{4}$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality,
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<1+frac{9}{20}<1+frac{10}{20}=frac{6}{4}$$
So it's true $forall ngeq 6 land n in mathbb{N}$ (it's true for $n=5$ as well, but Bernoulli is not helping in that case).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
We can use induction as well. If we assume that it's true for $n$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+...+frac{1}{n}+frac{1}{n+1}<log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1}$$
So we need to prove that
$$log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1} < log_2(n+1)$$
$$frac{1}{n+1}< log_2left(1+frac{1}{n}right)$$
$$2^{frac{1}{n+1}}<1+frac{1}{n}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n+1}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right) left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$$
And it's true, because
$$1+frac{1}{n}>1$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality:
$$left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n geq 1+n frac{1}{n}=2$$
So we just need to find a good starting $n$. Let's check it for $n=6$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}+frac{1}{6}<log_2(6)$$
$$frac{9}{20}<log_2({6/4})$$
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<frac{6}{4}$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality,
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<1+frac{9}{20}<1+frac{10}{20}=frac{6}{4}$$
So it's true $forall ngeq 6 land n in mathbb{N}$ (it's true for $n=5$ as well, but Bernoulli is not helping in that case).
We can use induction as well. If we assume that it's true for $n$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+...+frac{1}{n}+frac{1}{n+1}<log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1}$$
So we need to prove that
$$log_2(n)+frac{1}{n+1} < log_2(n+1)$$
$$frac{1}{n+1}< log_2left(1+frac{1}{n}right)$$
$$2^{frac{1}{n+1}}<1+frac{1}{n}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n+1}$$
$$2<left(1+frac{1}{n}right) left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$$
And it's true, because
$$1+frac{1}{n}>1$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality:
$$left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n geq 1+n frac{1}{n}=2$$
So we just need to find a good starting $n$. Let's check it for $n=6$:
$$1+frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{5}+frac{1}{6}<log_2(6)$$
$$frac{9}{20}<log_2({6/4})$$
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<frac{6}{4}$$
And by Bernoulli's inequality,
$$2^{frac{9}{20}}<1+frac{9}{20}<1+frac{10}{20}=frac{6}{4}$$
So it's true $forall ngeq 6 land n in mathbb{N}$ (it's true for $n=5$ as well, but Bernoulli is not helping in that case).
edited Nov 23 at 10:51
answered Nov 23 at 10:34
Botond
5,1012732
5,1012732
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Yes because $H_n-log n$ is bounded by $1$ and $log_2n$ is a multiple of $log n$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Yes because $H_n-log n$ is bounded by $1$ and $log_2n$ is a multiple of $log n$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Yes because $H_n-log n$ is bounded by $1$ and $log_2n$ is a multiple of $log n$.
Yes because $H_n-log n$ is bounded by $1$ and $log_2n$ is a multiple of $log n$.
answered Nov 23 at 10:58
Yves Daoust
122k668217
122k668217
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010094%2fis-1-frac12-frac13-dots-frac1x-log-2-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
See this Wikipedia article, then consider $ln x= ln 2cdot log_2 x$
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 7:59
Thanks, Arthur but I'm not clear if you are saying it is true or false. $ln 2 < 0.694$ so that $ln 2 < log_2 x$. The article shows that $ln x < 1 + 1/2 + dots + 1/x$. I am not clear what that says about my question.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:07
It also shows that $1+ln xgeq1+1/2+cdots$.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:10
ok. Now I get it. You are saying it is true because for $x > 11, log_2 x > (ln x)frac{10}{7} > ln x + 1$ Thanks.
– Larry Freeman
Nov 23 at 8:17
And then you can check by hand which cases $xleq 11$ it is true for as well. Exactly.
– Arthur
Nov 23 at 8:23