J. London Math. Soc.

(2) 69 (2004) 639656

! 2004 London Mathematical Society

DOI: 10.1112/S0024610704005253

ON RAMANUJANS INEQUALITIES FOR exp(k)

HORST ALZER
Abstract
Ramanujan claimed in his first letter to Hardy (16 January 1913) that
"
#
k1
! k
kk 1
4
1 k
e
=
+
(k = 1, 2, . . .),
2
!
k! 3
135(k + (k))
=0

where (k) lies between 2/21 and 8/45. This conjecture was proved in 1995 by Flajolet et al. The
paper establishes the following refinement.
#
"
k1
! k
kk 1
4
8
1 k
e
=
+

(k = 1, 2, . . .),
2
!
k! 3
135k
2835(k + (k))2
=0
where

4
1
< (k) ! 1 + $
= 0.140 74. . . .
3
21(368 135e)

Both bounds for (k) are sharp.

1. Introduction
In 1911, Ramanujan [10] published the following elegant inequalities for exp(k)
(k N) as Question 294 in the Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society. Let
#
"
k1
k! 1 k ! k
e
.
(1.1)
y(k) = k
k
2
!
=0
Show that

1
3

< y(k) <

1
2

for k = 1, 2, . . . .

(1.2)

Ramanujan, who noted that (1.2) is difficult to prove [10, p. 152], only offered
a partial solution. He provided the limit relation
lim y(k) =

1
3

and the asymptotic expansion

4
8
16
1

+ ...
(k ).
(1.3)
y(k) +
3 135k 2835k 2
8505k 3
This ultimately famous problem [2, p. 46] found the attention of many
mathematicians. The first complete proofs of (1.2) were published by Szeg
o [12]
in 1928 and by Watson [14] one year later. Further proofs were presented by
Cheng [5], Karamata [8] and Bracken [4]. Several authors revealed that (1.2)
has close connections to probability theory, combinatorics, and the theory of
special functions. Other authors studied various counterparts and applications.

Received 1 October 2003.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 33B10 (primary), 26D07 (secondary).

640

horst alzer

For example, from (1.2) we obtain a nice double-inequality for the gamma and
incomplete gamma functions:
(k, k)
1
(k, k 1)
< <
(k)
2
(k)

(k = 1, 2, . . .);

see [13]. An interesting survey of this subject with a detailed list of references is
given in [2, pp. 4647]. See also [1, pp. 181184].
In his first letter to Hardy (16 January 1913), Ramanujan stated a remarkable
refinement of (1.2), which is related to the asymptotic expansion (1.3):
1
4
1
4
+
< y(k) < +
(k = 1, 2, . . .).
(1.4)
3 135(k + 8/45)
3 135(k + 2/21)
See [11, p. xxvi] and [3, pp. 27, 41]. Watson [14] intensively investigated these
inequalities and gave reasons, which are fairly convincing [14, p. 293] that (1.4)
holds. A complete proof of (1.4) was published in 1995 by Flajolet et al. [6], who
used methods from complex analysis to settle Ramanujans conjecture. It is the aim
of this paper to present new bounds for y(k), which are better than those given in
(1.4).
Theorem 1. Let , > 1 be real numbers. The inequalities
&
%
4
8
kk 1
+

k! 3 135k 2835(k + )2
&
%
k1
kk 1
4
8
1 k ! k
!
+

< e
2
!
k! 3 135k 2835(k + )2
=0

(1.5)

hold for all natural numbers k if and only if

! 31

and

" 1 + $

4
21(368 135e)

= 0.140 74. . . .

(1.6)

It is not difficult to show that the validity of (1.5) leads to the estimates (1.6).
Let
&
%
2835 1
4
1
4
8
(k) =
+
y(k) , (k, x) = +

8
3 135k
3 135k 2835(k + x)2

and

0 = 1 + $

4
21(368 135e)

(1.7)

Throughout this paper 0 denotes the real number defined in (1.7). The second
inequality of (1.5) gives y(1) = (1, 0 ) ! (1, ), which yields " 0 . The lefthand inequality of (1.5) is equivalent to
1
1
.
(1.8)
< k(1 k 2 (k))
k((k))1/2 (1 + k((k))1/2 )
Using the asymptotic expansion (1.3) we get the limit relations
lim k(1 k 2 (k)) = 23

and

lim k((k))1/2 = 1,

(1.9)

so that (1.8) and (1.9) give ! 1/3.

It remains to show that (1.6) implies (1.5) for all k N. Since x & (k, x)
is strictly increasing on (1, ), it suffices to establish (1.5) for = 1/3 and

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

641

= 0 . Our method of proof follows Watsons elegant approach. In the next section
we collect some of the tools provided by Watson, and we demonstrate that in order
to prove Theorem 1 it is enough to show that a certain function F1 is positive on
(0, ), and that a certain function F2 has precisely one zero on (0, ). In Section 3
we present some lemmas, and in Section 4 we establish our assertions concerning
F1 and F2 .
In the course of the proof we need many numerical values, which were calculated
with the computer program Maple V, Release 5.1. Dr Ville Heikkala (University of
Helsinki) kindly cross-checked the correctness of these values using Mathematica,
Release 3.0.
2. Watsons approach
Let t " 0 be a real number. Then there exist uniquely determined real numbers
u = u(t) and v = v(t) such that
ue1u = et

with 0 < u ! 1

and ve1v = et

with v " 1.

(2.1)

In what follows we denote by u and v the functions defined in (2.1).

The function u is strictly decreasing on [0, ) with u(0) = 1 and limt u(t) = 0,
whereas v is strictly increasing on [0, ) with v(0) = 1 and limt v(t) = .
Furthermore, u and v satisfy for t > 0 the differential equations
u$ (t) =
and the inequality

If we set

u(t)
u(t) 1

and

v $ (t) =

v(t)
v(t) 1

u(t)
v(t)
<
.
(1 u(t))3
(v(t) 1)3
t = x coth x 1 + log

sinh x
x

(x > 0),

(2.2)

(2.3)

(2.4)

then we have the representations

u = x(coth x 1)

and v = x(coth x + 1).

Using u and v we can express y, as defined in (1.1), as Laplace transform:

!
4
y(k) = 13 + 135
ekt (t) dt,

(2.5)

(2.6)

where

&
%
v(t)
u(t)
135

(t) =
.
8 (v(t) 1)3
(1 u(t))3

(2.7)

Inequality (2.3) implies that is positive on (0, ). Applying (2.6) we conclude

that (1.5) is equivalent to
!
1
2
2
1

<
ekt (t) dt !
.
(2.8)
2
k 21(k + )
k 21(k + )2
0
As remarked in Section 1, we may assume that = 1/3 and = 0 . The following
proposition plays a key role in our proof of (2.8).

642

horst alzer

Proposition 1. (i) The function

F1 (t) = 1 +

t/3
2
21 te

+ (t)

is positive on (0, ).
(ii) There exists a real number t0 > 0 such that
F2 (t) = 1

0 t
2
21 te

is positive on (0, t0 ) and negative on (t0 , ).

(t)

We show that Proposition 1 implies (2.8) with = 1/3 and = 0 . Using the
integral representation
!
1
1
=
ext tr1 dt
(x > 0, r > 0)
xr
(r) 0

for r = 1 and r = 2, respectively, we conclude that the inequalities (2.8) are

equivalent to
!
!
kt
e F1 (t) dt and 0 !
ekt F2 (t) dt.
(2.9)
0<
0

Obviously, the first part of Proposition 1 implies the left-hand inequality of (2.9).
We define for x > 0
!
ext F2 (t) dt.
G(x) =
0

Applying the second part of Proposition 1 we get

!
e(t0 t)x (t0 t)F2 (t) dt > 0.
(et0 x G(x))$ =
0

This implies for x > 1

et0 x G(x) > et0 G(1) = 0.

Hence the right-hand inequality of (2.9) is valid, where the sign of equality holds if
and only if k = 1.
3. Lemmas
In this section we present some technical lemmas, which we need to prove
Proposition 1.
Lemma 1. The functions
u(t)(1 + 2u(t))
v(t)(1 + 2v(t))
, 2 (t) =
1 (t) =
(1 u(t))5
(v(t) 1)5
and
#1
"
%
&3
v(t) 1
u(t)
3 (t) = 1
1 u(t)
v(t)
are strictly decreasing on (0, ). Moreover, 3 (t) > 1 for t > 0.
Proof. Using (2.2) we obtain for t > 0
1 $ (t) =

u(t)
(6(u(t))2 + 8u(t) + 1) < 0
(1 u(t))7

(3.1)

(3.2)

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

643

and
2 $ (t) =

v(t)
(6(v(t))2 + 8v(t) + 1) < 0.
(v(t) 1)7

In [14] it is proved that 1 1/3 is strictly decreasing on (0, ), so that (2.3)

implies that 3 1 is positive and strictly decreasing on (0, ).
Lemma 2. Let
t(t 4) log t
135 2t + 1
+
3 log (t 1) +
,
8
t1
(t 1)2
%
&
2
1
2 (t) = log 1 tet/3
t
21
1 (t) = log

and

%
&
2 0 t
1
3 (t) = log 1 te
.
t
21

(3.3)
(3.4)

(3.5)

Then, 1 is strictly decreasing on (1, ). There exists a number t

(11.3316, 11.3317) such that 1 is positive on (1, t ) and negative on (t , ). The
function 2 is strictly increasing on (0, 3.39) and 3 is strictly increasing on (0, 5.11).
Proof. We have 1 (11.3317) < 0 < 1 (11.3316) and
1$ (t) =

2(t + 2)(t 1 log t)

<0
(t 1)3

for t > 1.

This implies that there exists a number t (11.3316, 11.3317) such that 1 is
positive on (1, t ) and negative on (t , ).
Next, we apply the following elementary monotonicity theorem (see [7, p. 106]).
Let f, g be differentiable functions such that f (0) = g(0) = 0 and g $ > 0 on (0, x0 ).
If f $ /g $ is strictly increasing on (0, x0 ), then f /g is also strictly increasing on (0, x0 ).
Let a > 0 and 1 (2/21)teat > 0 for 0 < t < t1 . We define
%
&
2 at
f (t) = log 1 te
and g(t) = t.
21
From

f $ (t)
g $ (t)

&$

2eat
(42a + 21a2 t + 2eat ) > 0
(21 + 2teat )2

we conclude that f /g is strictly increasing on (0, t1 ). Since

1

t/3
2
21 te

> 0 for 0 < t < 3.39

and 1

0 t
2
21 te

>0

for 0 < t < 5.11,

it follows that 2 and 3 are strictly increasing on (0, 3.39) and (0, 5.11), respectively.

Lemma 3. Let

and

1
A(t) = log
t

8(v(t) 1)3
135v(t)

&

"
#
%
&3
(v(t) 1)
u(t)
1
.
B(t) = log 1
t
1 u(t)
v(t)

(3.6)

(3.7)

644

horst alzer

There exists a number t2 (7.9040, 7.9041) such that A is strictly increasing on

(0, t2 ] and strictly decreasing on [t2 , ). The function B is strictly decreasing on
(0, ).
Proof. Let 1 and t be defined in Lemma 2. Differentiation gives
1
A$ (t) = 2 1 (v(t)).
t
Since v is strictly increasing from [0, ) onto [1, ), there exists a number t2 > 0
such that v(t2 ) = t . Hence if 0 < t < t2 , then 1 (v(t)) > 1 (t ) = 0; and, if t > t2 ,
then 1 (v(t)) < 1 (t ) = 0. From v(7.9040) = 11.3315. . . and v(7.9041) = 11.3317. . .
we get t2 (7.9040, 7.9041).
We have for t > 0
1
B(t) = log 3 (t),
t
where 3 is defined in (3.2). Since 3 (t) > 1, we conclude that B is the product of
two positive strictly decreasing functions.
Lemma 4. Let a = 4 B2 /(2)!, where B0 , B2 , B4 , . . . denote Bernoulli
numbers. Then we have for all real numbers x (0, 1] and all integers N " 0,
2N
!

a x2 < x coth x <

=0

(3.8)

a x2 .

=0

Proof. Let y = x2 (0, 1]. Then

x coth x
where

2N
+1
!

2N
!

=0

a x2 =

L y 21 ,

=N +1

L = a21 + a2 y.
We have L1 = (1/3) y/45 > 0. Using (1)n+1 B2n > 0 (n = 1, 2, . . .) and Leemings
inequalities
' n (2n
' n (2n
< |B2n | < 5 n
(n = 2, 3, . . .)
(3.9)
4 n
e
e
(see [9]), we obtain for " 2
L " a21 + a2 =

42
42
((4 1)|B42 | |B4 |) >
(() ()),
(4)!
(4)!

where

%
&2(21)
$
2 1
() = 4 (2 1)(4 1)
e

$
and () = 5 (2)

2
e

&4

Let t " 2 and z(t) = log (t) log (t). Differentiation gives
%
&
1
8t2 4t + 1
32t2 16t + 1
z $ (t) = 4 log 1
and z $$ (t) = 2
.
+
2t
2t(2t 1)(4t 1)
2t (2t 1)2 (4t 1)2

Since z $$ < 0 on [2, ), limt z $ (t) = 0 and z(2) = 2.06. . . , we conclude that
z(t) > 0 for t " 2. This implies that L > 0 for = 2, 3, . . . .

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

645

We have
x coth x
where

2N
+1
!

a x2 =

=0

L y 2 ,

=N +1

L = a2 + a2+1 y.
Applying (3.9) we get for " 1
L ! a2 + a2+1 =
<
where

24+1
(2|B4+2 | (2 + 1)(4 + 1)|B4 |)
(4 + 2)!

24+1
( () ()),
(4 + 2)!
%
&2(2+1)
$
2 + 1
() = 10 (2 + 1)
e

and

% &4
$
2
() = 4 (2)(2 + 1)(4 + 1)
.
e

Let t " 1 and z (t) = log (t) log (t). Then

%
&
1
32t2 + 16t + 1
and
z $ (t) = 4 log 1 +

2t
2t(2t + 1)(4t + 1)

z $$ (t) =

8t2 + 4t + 1
.
+ 1)2 (4t + 1)2

2t2 (2t

Since limt z $ (t) = 0 and z (1) = 2.05. . . , we obtain z (t) < 0 for t " 1. Hence
L < 0 for = 1, 2, . . . .
Lemma 5. For all x (0, 1] we have
1 4
2 6
1 8
2
1
x
x +
x
x10
1 x2 +
3
15
189
675
10 395
%
&2
x
<
sinh x
1
1
2 6
1 8
x +
x .
< 1 x2 + x4
3
15
189
675

(3.10)

Proof. Let x (0, 1] and

(x) = 2 log x log (x) 2 log (sinh x),

where (x) denotes the sum on the left-hand side of (3.10). Applying Lemma 4 we
obtain
5
x $
x $ (x) !
x $ (x)
(x) = 1
x coth x >

a x2
2
2(x)
2(x)
=1
=
This leads to

x12 (34 204 50 269 280x2 + 23 023x4 1760x6 + 100x8 )

> 0.
467 775(51 975 17 325x2 + 3465x4 550x6 + 77x8 10x10 )
(x) > lim (t) = 0,
t0

which is equivalent to the first inequality of (3.10).

646

horst alzer

We have
%
&
1
2 6
1 8
1
x +
x x2
(sinh x)2 1 x2 + x4
3
15
189
675
#2 %
" 4
&
! x2+1
1 4
2 6
1 8
1 2
x +
x x2
>
1 x + x
(2 + 1)!
3
15
189
675
=0
=

104 x12 D(x)

,
62 219 695 104

where
D(x) = 119 679 638 400 + 25 095 057 120x2 + 2 155 552 560x4 + 105 551 397x6
+ 3 377 097x8 + 71 739x10 + 958x12 + 7x14 .
Hence the second inequality of (3.10) holds.
Lemma 6. The function
sinh x
(3.11)
x
is strictly increasing from (0, ) onto (0, ). Moreover, for all x (0, 1] we have
1 2
1
2
4
1
x <
+ ,
(3.12)
0< 2 +
x
9 270
p(x) 3
2
1
0 < x 19 x3 + 135
x5 525
x7 < p$ (x),
(3.13)
p(x) = x coth x 1 + log

2
21 p(x) exp(p(x)/3)

<1

1 2
21 x

4
1
189 x .

(3.14)

Proof. Differentiation yields for x > 0

!
(2 1)
(2x)21 > 0.
p$ (x) = (sinh x)2
(2)!
=2

Further, we have limx0 p(x) = 0 and limx p(x) = .

To prove the second inequality of (3.12) it suffices to show that the function
G1 (x) =

2+

x2
p(x)
x4 /270

(x2 /9)

attains only positive values on (0, 1]. Using Lemmas 4 and 5 we obtain for x (0, 1]
%
&2
x
540x2 (x4 + 540)
xG$1 (x) = 4

2x
coth
x
+
+1
(x 30x2 540)2
sinh x
5
!
540x2 (x4 + 540)
1
1
> 4

2
a x2 + 2 x2 + x4
2
2
(x 30x 540)
3
15
=0
2 6
1 8
2
x +
x
x10
189
675
10 395
x8 G2 (x)
=
,
4
42 525(x 30x2 540)2

where

G2 (x) = 4 908 600 504 225x2 296 055x4 3690x6 + 681x8 10x10 > 0.

Thus G1 (x) > G1 (0) = 0.

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

647

Next, we prove the right-hand inequality of (3.13). Let x (0, 1]. We have
%
&2
x
$
1.
xp (x) = 2x coth x
sinh x

Applying Lemma 4 we conclude that it suffices to show that

%
&2
4
!
x
1
2 6
1 8
2
2
x
x
a x
1 > x2 x4 +
sinh
x
9
135
525
=0

or, equivalently,

)
sinh x x 1 13 x2 +

1 4
15 x

6
2
189 x

*
8 1/2
1
675 x

> 0.

(3.15)

We denote the expression on the left-hand side of (3.15) by H1 (x). Differentiation

gives
T2 (x2 )
T2 (x2 )
2
H1$ (x) = cosh x
"
T
(x
)

,
(3.16)
1
(T3 (x2 ))3/2
(T3 (x2 ))3/2
where
T1 (t) =
and
We have

4
!
t
,
(2)!
=0

T2 (t) = 6615(4725 315t2 + 100t3 21t4 )

T3 (t) = 99 225 33 075t + 6615t2 1050t3 + 147t4 .

(T2 (t))2
t5 H2 (t)
=
, (3.17)
3
(T3 (t))
1 625 702 400(4725 1575t + 315t2 50t3 + 7t4 )3
+15
with H2 (t) = =0 b t . Let t (0, 1]. Simple estimates of the coefficients b give
(T1 (t))2

b0 + b1 t + b2 t2 > 1015 [360 21t 24t2 ] > 0, b3 t3 + b4 t4 > 1014 t3 [90 22t] > 0,
b5 t5 + b6 t6 > 1012 t5 [310 24t] > 0,

and

b7 t7 + b8 t8 + b9 t9 > 109 t7 [1000 + 52t 20t2 ] > 0

b > 0

for = 10, . . . , 15.

Hence H2 is positive on (0, 1], so that (3.16) and (3.17) imply that H1$ (x) > 0 for
x (0, 1]. This leads to H1 (x) > H1 (0) = 0.
Now, we establish (3.14). We have to show that
*
)
21 2
I1 (x) = log p(x) + 13 p(x) + log 2 2 log x log 1 + 189
x
is positive on (0, 1]. Differentiation yields
%
&
1
1
2x
2
+
I1$ (x) = p$ (x)
.

p(x) 3
x 9 + x2

Applying (3.12) and (3.13) we get for x (0, 1]

%
&%
&
2
1 2
2x
1 3
2 5
1 7
4
2
$
I1 (x) > x x +
x
x
x
+
9
135
525
x2
9 270
x 9 + x2
x3 I2 (x2 )
,
=
1 275 750(9 + x2 )

648

horst alzer

where
I2 (t) = 14 175 + 6660t 6285t2 1069t3 + 9t4 > 0

Thus, we obtain I1 (x) > limt0 I1 (t) = 0 for x (0, 1].

for t (0, 1].

Lemma 7. Let p be the function defined in (3.11). For x (0, 0.724] we have
0<

1
1 2
2
63
0 < 2 +

x .
p(x)
x
250 271

Also, if x (0, 1/2], then

0 < p$ (x) < x

1 3
10 x

(3.18)

(3.19)

and
1

1 2
21 x

4
1
200 x

<1

2
21 p(x) exp(0 p(x)).

(3.20)

Proof. Let c = 89/800. Then c < 0 + 63/250. This implies that in order to prove
the second inequality of (3.18) it suffices to show that the function
J1 (x) = p(x)

x2
2 + cx2 x4 /271

is positive on (0, 0.724]. Differentiation gives

%
&2
x
542x2 (x4 + 542)
xJ1$ (x) = 2x coth x
1 4
.
sinh x
(x 271cx2 542)2

(3.21)

Applying the left-hand inequality of (3.8) with N = 2 and the right-hand inequality
of (3.10) we get
%
&2
x
1
2 6
1 8
x
x .
> 1 + x2 x4 +
(3.22)
2x coth x
sinh x
9
135
525
Combining (3.21) and (3.22) we obtain for x (0, 1]
xJ1$ (x) >

x4 J2 (x2 )
,
4725(800x4 24 119x2 433 600)2

where J2 is a polynomial of degree 6 with integer coefficients, which satisfies for

t > 0 the inequality
105 J2 (t) > 12105 +11104 t36105 t2 18105 t3 21103 t4 +39102 t5 58t6 = J3 (t),

say. A simple calculation yields that J3 is concave on [0, 1]. Since J3 (0) > 0 and
that J3 is positive on (0, 0.525]. This implies that
J3 (0.525) > 0, we conclude

J1$ (x) > 0 for 0 < x ! 0.525 = 0.724. . . . Thus J1 (x) > J1 (0) = 0 for x (0, 0.724].
We establish the right-hand side of (3.19) for x (0, 1/2]. The inequality
p$ (x) = 2 coth x

is equivalent to

1
x
1
< x x3
2
(sinh x)
x
10

%
&
1
1
+ x x3 + 2x 2 sinh(2x) = K(2x),
0 < (cosh(2x) 1)
x
10

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

649

say. Let 0 < y ! 1. Then we get

%
&%
&
1 2
2 1
1
1
1 6
y + y4 +
y
+ y y 3 + y 2 sinh y = L(y),
K(y) >
2
24
720
y 2
80
say. We have

L() (0) = 0

for = 0, . . . , 4,

L$$ (1) > 0,

L$$$ (1) < 0,

L(4) (1) < 0

and
L(6) (y) = 78 y

21 3
20 y

2 sinh y < 0.

This implies that L is positive on (0, 1]. Hence K(2x) > 0 for 0 < x ! 1/2.
Inequality (3.20) is equivalent to
*
)
21 2
x log p(x) + 0 p(x) = M (x),
0 < 2 log x log 2 + log 1 + 200
say. Applying (3.18) and (3.19) we get for x (0, 1/2]
%
&
1
84x2 + 400
$

(x)
M $ (x) =
0
x(21x2 + 200)
p(x)
%
&%
&
2
1 3
1 2
84x2 + 400
63

x
>
+
x(21x2 + 200)
10
x2
250 271
=

x(21 409 000 + 3 174 770x2 + 361 033x4 5250x6 )

> 0.
677 500(21x2 + 200)

Thus M (x) > limt0 M (t) = 0 for x (0, 1/2].

Lemma 8. For all x (0, 1] we have
&
%
8
1 4
x[coth x 1]
x[coth x + 1]
1 2
x <
+
.
1 x
135
21
189
(x[coth x + 1] 1)3
(x[coth x 1] 1)3
Proof. Let x (0, 1]. From Lemma 4 we obtain
0<1+x+

4
!

a x2 < x(coth x + 1),

=1

0 < x(coth x 1) < 1 x +

5
!

=1

a x2 ,

0 < x(coth x + 1) 1 < x +

0<x

5
!

=1

5
!

(3.23)

a x2 ,

=1

a x2 < 1 x(coth x 1).

We denote the expression on the right-hand side of (3.23) by S1 (x). Then

+4
+5
1 + x + =1 a x2
1 x + =1 a x2
S1 (x) > '
(3 '
(3 = S2 (x),
+5
+5
x + =1 a x2
x =1 a x2

(3.24)

say. Further, we get

where

%
&
1 2
1 4
2x6 N (x)
x =
,
135S2 (x) 8 1 x
21
189
189(N1 (x)N2 (x))3

N1 (x) = 467 775 + 155 925x 10 395x3 + 990x5 99x7 + 10x9 > 0,
N2 (x) = 467 775 155 925x + 10 395x3 990x5 + 99x7 10x9 > 0,

(3.25)

650

horst alzer

and N (x) =

+52

=0 c x .

For N we obtain the estimate

N (x) > 1031 [900 290x 280x2 96x3 ]

+ 1028 x4 [94 000 + 12 000x 26 000x2 1700x3 + 5000x4

+ 200x5 860x6 25x7 ] + 1026 x12 [13 000 + 150x 1800x2 12x3 ]
+ 1023 x16 [210 000 + 770x 25 000x2 40x3 ] + 1022 x20 [25 000 2500x2
+ 210x4 19x6 ] + 1017 x28 [130 000 9800x2 + 610x4 35x6 ]
+ 1011 x36 [1 600 000 55 000x2 + 100x4 + 160x6 16x8 ]
+ 106 x46 [100 000 5400x2 + 200x4 4x6 ].

Since all terms in square brackets are positive, we get N (x) > 0. From (3.24) and
(3.25) we conclude that (3.23) is valid for all x (0, 1].
Lemma 9. For all x (0, 0.457] we have

&
%
x[coth x + 1]
x[coth x 1]
8
1 4
1 2
x
x
+
<

.
1

(x[coth x + 1] 1)3
(x[coth x 1] 1)3
135
21
200

(3.26)

Proof. Applying Lemma 4 we obtain for x (0, 1]

0 < x(coth x + 1) < 1 + x +

5
!

0<x+

a x2 ,

=1

0<1x+

4
!

=1

6
!

=1

a x2 < x(coth x 1),

a x2 < x(coth x + 1) 1,

0 < 1 x(coth x 1) < x

6
!

a x2 .

=1

Let S1 (x) be the expression on the left-hand side of (3.26). Then

+5
+4
1 + x + =1 a x2
1 x + =1 a x2
S1 (x) < '
(3 '
(3 = S3 (x),
+6
+6
x + =1 a x2
x =1 a x2

say. Hence we have

%
%
&
&
1
1 4
1
1 4
x 135S1 (x) > 8 1 x2
x 135S3 (x)
8 1 x2
21
200
21
200
=

x4 N (x)
,
525(N1 (x)N2 (x))3

where
N1 (x) = 638 512 875 + 212 837 625x 14 189 175x3 + 1 351 350x5
135 135x7 + 13 650x9 1382x11 > 0,
N2 (x) = 638 512 875 212 837 625x + 14 189 175x3 1 351 350x5
+ 135 135x7 13 650x9 + 1382x11 > 0,

(3.27)

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

and N (x) =

+66

=0 c x .

651

We get

N (x) > 1050 (x) + 1048 x8 [7900 590x 1900x2 + 72x3 ]

+ 1047 x12 [3300 87x 540x2 + 10x3 ]
+ 1044 x16 [79 000 720x 11 000x2 + 56x3 ]
+ 1042 x20 [140 000 430x 17 000x2 + 28x3 ]
+ 1041 x24 [18 000 15x 2100x2 + 200x4 21x6 ]
+ 1037 x32 [18 000 1700x2 + 130x4 12x6 ]
+ 1029 x40 [83 106 59 105 x2 + 38 104 x4

24 103 x6 + 1200x8 62x10 ]

+ 1019 x52 [21 109 34 107 x2 31 106 x4

+ 41 105 x6 34 104 x8 + 18 103 x10 730x12 + 14x14 ],

where

(x) = 828 3542x2 1027x3 + 425x4 343x5 216x6 + 45x7 .

Obviously, all terms in square brackets are positive for x (0, 1]. A short calculation
gives that is strictly concave on [0, 1]. Since (0) > 0 and (0.457) > 0, we
conclude that (x) > 0 for x [0, 0.457]. From (3.27) we obtain that (3.26) holds
for all x (0, 0.457].
Lemma 10. The function , as defined in (2.7), is strictly decreasing on
(0, 0.474].
Proof. Let t (0, 0.474]. Using (2.2) we get
&
%
135 u(t)(1 + 2u(t)) v(t)(1 + 2v(t))

$ (t) =
.
8
(1 u(t))5
(v(t) 1)5

(3.28)

Differentiation of

1 (t) = log
gives
$1 (t) =
where

v(t)(1 + 2v(t))
u(t)(1 + 2u(t))
log
5
(v(t) 1)
(1 u(t))5

(v(t) u(t))2 (t)

,
(1 u(t))2 (1 + 2u(t))(v(t) 1)2 (1 + 2v(t))

(3.29)

(3.30)

2 (t) = 12(u(t))2 (v(t))2 + 16u(t)v(t)[u(t) + v(t)]

22u(t)v(t) + 2[(u(t))2 + (v(t))2 ] 9[u(t) + v(t)] 8.

Let p be the function defined in (3.11). Since p(0) = 0 and p(1) = 0.474. . . , there
exists a number x (0, 1] with p(x) = t. We have
u(t) = x(coth x 1),

v(t) = x(coth x + 1),

which leads to the representation

1
2 2 (t)

= 4 + 13x2 + 6x4 (9 + 16x2 )x coth x (9 + 12x2 )(x coth x)2

+ 16(x coth x)3 + 6(x coth x)4 .

(3.31)

652

horst alzer

From Lemma 4 we get

0<

4
!

a x2 < x coth x <

=0

3
!

a x2

(0 < x ! 1).

(3.32)

=0

Applying (3.31) and (3.32) we obtain

1
x6 3 (x)
2 (t) >
,
(3.33)
2
166 144 510 546 875
where 3 is a polynomial of degree 26, which satisfies for x (0, 1] the inequalities
3 (x) > 109 [3500 250x2 2300x4 160x6 17x8 ] + 107 x10 [420 75x2 ]

+ 105 x14 [1000 94x2 ] + 103 x18 [710 46x2 ] + x22 [2040 80x2 ] + 2x26 > 0.
(3.34)

Using (3.28)(3.30), (3.33), (3.34) and limt0 1 (t) = 0, we conclude that $ (t) < 0.

4. Proof of Proposition 1
(i) To prove that F1 is positive on (0, ), we consider three cases.
Case 1: 0 < t ! 0.474.
Let

1 (t) = 1

t/3
2
,
21 te

and let p be the function defined in (3.11). Since p(0) = 0 and p(1) = 0.474. . . , there
exists a number x (0, 1] such that p(x ) = t. From (2.4), (2.5), (2.7), (3.14) and
(3.23) we obtain

2
1 (t) = 1 p(x )ep(x )/3
21
&
%
x [coth x + 1]
135
x [coth x 1]
<
+
= (t).
8 (x [coth x + 1] 1)3
(x [coth x 1] 1)3
Thus F1 (t) > 0.

Case 2: 0.474 ! t ! 2.72.

The inequality F1 (t) > 0 is equivalent to
0 < 2 (t) A(t) B(t),

(4.1)

where 2 , A and B are defined in (3.4), (3.6) and (3.7), respectively. Let 0.474 !
r ! t ! s ! 2.72. Applying Lemmas 2 and 3 we get
say. Let

2 (t) A(t) B(t) " 2 (r) A(s) B(r) = P (r, s),

n1
,
8300
n1
r3 (n) = 0.9 +
,
500
r1 (n) = 0.474 +

n1
,
2950
n1
r4 (n) = 1.6 +
,
25

r2 (n) = 0.6 +

and
s1 (n) = 0.474+

n
,
8300

s2 (n) = 0.6+

n
,
2950

s3 (n) = 0.9+

n
,
500

s4 (n) = 1.6+

n
.
25

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

653

We have
P (r1 (n), s1 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 1046),

P (r2 (n), s2 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 885),

P (r3 (n), s3 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 350),

P (r4 (n), s4 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 28).

This implies that (4.1) holds for t [0.474, 2.72].

Case 3: t " 2.72.
We consider two subcases.
Case 3.1: 2.72 ! t ! 3.4.
We have

$
8
135 F1 (t)

= 1 (t) 2 (t) + 1 (t),

(4.2)

where 1 and 2 are defined in (3.1) and

%
&
16
t t/3
1 (t) =
1+
e .
2835
3

From Lemma 1 and (4.2) we obtain

$
8
135 F1 (t)

" 1 (3.4) 2 (2.72) + 1 (2.72) = 0.001. . . .

This implies that F1 (t) " F1 (2.72) = 0.254. . . .

Case 3.2: t " 3.4.
We get
F1 (t) = (t) 1 (t) > 1 (t) " 1 (3.4) = 0.005. . . .
(ii) Next, we study the function F2 . We distinguish five cases.
Case 1: 0 < t ! 0.103.
We define
2 (t) = 1

0 t
2
.
21 te

Since p(0) = 0 and p(0.457) = 0.103. . ., there exists a number x

(0, 0.457] such that
p(
x) = t. Using (2.4), (2.5), (2.7), (3.20) and (3.26) we get
&
%
x
[coth x
+ 1]
x
[coth x
1]
135
+
(t) =
8 (
x[coth x
+ 1] 1)3
(
x[coth x
1] 1)3
<1

2
p(
x)e0 p(x) = 2 (t).
21

This implies that F2 is positive on (0, 0.103].

Case 2: 0.103 ! t ! 0.474
Applying Lemma 10 we get for 0.103 ! r ! t ! s ! 0.474
F2 (t) = 2 (t) (t) " 2 (s) (r) = P (r, s),
say. Since
P (0.103 + (n 1)/600, 0.103 + n/600) > 0
we conclude that F2 (t) > 0 for t [0.103, 0.474].

for n = 1, . . . , 223,

654

horst alzer

Case 3: 0.474 ! t ! 2.
The inequality F2 (t) > 0 is equivalent to
0 < 3 (t) + A(t) + B(t),
where 3 is defined in (3.5). Let 0.474 ! r ! t ! s ! 2. Then, Lemmas 2 and 3 lead
to
3 (t) + A(t) + B(t) " 3 (s) + A(r) + B(s) = Q (r, s),
say. We define
n1
,
2500
n
s1 (n) = 0.474 +
,
2500
and obtain
r1 (n) = 0.474 +

n1
,
1200
n
s2 (n) = 0.6 +
,
1200
r2 (n) = 0.6 +

Q (r1 (n), s1 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 315),

n1
,
230
n
s3 (n) = 1 +
,
230
r3 (n) = 1 +

Q (r2 (n), s2 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 480),

Q (r3 (n), s3 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 230).

This implies that F2 is positive on [0.474, 2].
Case 4: 2 ! t ! 3.
We show that F2 is strictly decreasing on [2, 3]. Differentiation gives
8
135
F2$ (t) = 1 (t) 2 (t) + 2 (t),

where

2 (t) =

16
2835 (1

0 t)e0 t .

Applying Lemma 1 we get for 2 ! r ! t ! s ! 3

8
135
F2$ (t) " 1 (s) 2 (r) + 2 (r) = R (r, s),

say. Next, we set

n1
,
r1 (n) = 2 +
450
Since

r2 (n) = 2.5 +

n1
,
30

R (
r1 (n), s1 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . . , 225)

s1 (n) = 2 +

n
,
450

s2 (n) = 2.5 +

n
.
30

and R (
r2 (n), s2 (n)) > 0 (n = 1, . . ., 15),

we conclude that F2$ (t) < 0 for t [2, 3]. We have F2 (2) = 0.023. . . and F2 (3) =
0.008. . . . This implies that there exists a number t0 (2, 3) such that F2 is
positive on [2, t0 ) and negative on (t0 , 3].
Case 5: t " 3.
We consider three subcases.
Case 5.1: 3 ! t ! 4.5.
We prove that F2 (t) < 0 or, equivalently,
Let 3 ! r ! t ! s ! 4.5. Then

3 (t) + A(t) + B(t) < 0.

3 (t) + A(t) + B(t) ! 3 (r) + A(s) + B(r) = S (r, s),

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

655

say. Since
S (3 + (n 1)/36, 3 + n/36) < 0

for n = 1, . . . , 54,

we conclude that F2 is negative on [3, 4.5].

Case 5.2: 4.5 ! t ! 5.2.
We have the representation

F2 (t) = exp(t[A(t) + B(t)]) + 2 (t).

Since A(5.2) + B(4.5) > 0, we get from Lemma 3 that

F2 (t) ! exp(5.2[A(5.2) + B(4.5)]) + 2 (4.5) = 0.103. . . .

Case 5.3: t " 5.2.

We have

F2 (t) = 2 (t) (t) < 2 (t) ! 2 (5.2) = 0.029. . . .

Summarizing the results of the five considered cases, we obtain that there exists a
number t0 (2, 3) such that F2 is positive on (0, t0 ) and negative on (t0 , ). The
proof of Proposition 1 is complete.
Remark 1. We compare the bounds for y(k) given in (1.4) and (1.5),
respectively. Since
& %
&
%
1
4
8
4
1
+

3 135k 2835(k 1/3)2

3 135(k + 8/45)
=
and

8(117k 2 192k + 28)

>0
945k(45k + 8)(3k 1)2

1
4
+
3 135(k + 2/21)
=

&

for k " 2

1
4
8
+

3 135k 2835(k + 0 )2

8((2 420 )k 2102 )

>0
2835k(21k + 2)(k + 0 )2

&

for k " 1,

we conclude that the inequalities (1.5) (with = 1/3 and = 0 ) sharpen those
given in (1.4) for all k " 2.
References
1. B. C. Berndt, Ramanujans notebooks Part II (Springer, New York, 1989).
2. B. C. Berndt, Y.-S. Choi and S.-Y. Kang, The problems submitted by Ramanujan to
the Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society, Continued Fractions: From Analytic
Number Theory to Constructive Approximation (Columbia, MO, 1998), Contemporary
Mathematics 236 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999) 1556.
3. B. C. Berndt and R. A. Rankin, Ramanujan: letters and commentary (American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1995).
4. P. Bracken, A function related to the central limit theorem, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 39 (1998) 765775.
5. T. T. Cheng, The normal approximation to the Poisson distribution and a proof of a
conjecture of Ramanujan, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1949) 396401.
6. P. Flajolet, P. J. Grabner, P. Kirschenhofer and H. Prodinger, On Ramanujans
Q-function, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 58 (1995) 103116.
lya, Inequalities (Cambridge University Press,
7. G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood and G. Po
Cambridge, 1952).
8. J. Karamata, Sur quelques probl`emes pos
es par Ramanujan, J. Indian Math. Soc. 24 (1960)
343365.

656

on ramanujans inequalities for exp(k)

9. D. J. Leeming, The real zeros of the Bernoulli polynomials, J. Approx. Theory 58 (1989)
124150.
10. S. Ramanujan, Question 294, J. Indian Math. Soc. 3 (1911) 128; 4 (1912) 151152.
11. S. Ramanujan, Collected papers (Chelsea, New York, 1962).

, Uber
12. G. Szego
einige von S. Ramanujan gestellte Aufgaben, J. London Math. Soc. 3 (1928)
225232.
13. L. Vietoris, Dritter Beweis der die unvollst
andige Gammafunktion betreffenden Lochsschen

Ungleichungen, Sitzungsber. Osterr.

Akad. Wiss. Math.-Natur. Kl. II 192 (1983) 8391.
14. G. N. Watson, Theorems stated by Ramanujan (V): approximations connected with ex ,
Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 29 (1929) 293308.

Horst Alzer
Morsbacher Strae 10
D-51545 Waldbr
ol
Germany
alzerhorst@freenet.de