Bounds on the location of the maximum Stirling numbers of the second kind (Q1043998): Difference between revisions

Let \(S(n, k)\) denote the Stirling number of the second kind. According to \textit{L. H. Harper} [Ann. Math. Stat. 38, 410--414 (1967; Zbl 0154.43703)] and by means of Newton's inequalities, the sequence \(S(n, k)\), \(k= 1,\dots,n\), is unimodal, and \(K_n\) \((1\leq K_n\leq n)\) is its unique mode if \(S(n, K_n)\neq S(n, K_n+ 1)\). Determining the value of \(K_n\) is an old problem, and a related long-standing conjecture is that there exists no \(n> 2\) such that \(S(n, K_n)= S(n, K_n+ 1)\). In particular, \textit{E. R. Canfield} and \textit{C. Pomerance} [Integers 2, Paper A01, 13 p., electronic only (2002; Zbl 1008.11006); Corrigentum: Integers 5, No. 1, Paper A09, 1 p., electronic only (2005; Zbl 1121.11305)] noted that \([e^{w(n)}]- 1\leq K_n\leq [e^{w(n)}]\) for both \(2\leq n\leq 1200\) and \(n\) large enough, where \([x]\) denotes the integer part of \(x\) and \(w(n)\) is defined by \(n= w(n)e^{w(n)}\). Using probabilistic arguments, the present author shows that \([e^{w(n)}]- 2\leq K_n\leq [e^{w(n)}]+ 1\) for \(n\geq 2\).