o\], we have that $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq
F_{\mu}(k)$ if and only if $$\label{AAA}
e^{-\lambda} \lambda^{k+1} \leq (k+1) \int_{\mu} ^{\lambda} e^{-t} t^k dt.$$ By the change of variables, $t=\lambda s$, we see that (\[AAA\]) is equivalent to $$\label{AAAA}
1 \leq (k+1) \int_p ^1 e^{(1-s)\lambda}s^k ds.$$ The right side of (\[AAAA\]) is increasing in $\lambda$. Since $\mu'/\lambda' = p$ and $\lambda' > \lambda$, we have $F_{\lambda'}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu'}(k)$. Simple calculations show that $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$ if and only if $$\label{AAAAA}
\lambda \geq \frac{-k \log p}{1-p}.$$ The left side of (\[AAAAA\]) is obviously increasing in $\lambda$. Thus we have that $e^{-\lambda'}(\lambda')^k \leq
e^{-\mu'}(\mu')^k$.

For $x \in {{\mathbb R}}$, let ${ \lfloor x \rfloor }$ denote its integer part.

First we show that $\lambda_c(\mu) \leq \mu +1$. By Corollary \[auxresults\], it suffices to show that if $\lambda = \mu +1$, then there is a thinning from $\lambda$ to $\mu$. By Theorem \[main\] condition (\[prob\]), we must show for some $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ that $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu}(k) $ and $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$. The latter condition is satisfied by choosing $k= { \lfloor  1/\log ( 1 +
1/\mu)  \rfloor }$. As in the proof of Lemma \[mono\], $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq
F_{\mu}(k)$ if and only if $$\label{BBBBB}
\int_{\mu} ^{\lambda} e^{\mu-t}\Big(\frac{t}{\mu}\Big)^{k+1} dt \geq 1.$$ So by the change
o\ ], we have that $ F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq 
 F_{\mu}(k)$ if and only if $ $ \label{AAA } 
 e^{-\lambda } \lambda^{k+1 } \leq (k+1) \int_{\mu } ^{\lambda } e^{-t } t^k dt.$$ By the change of variables, $ t=\lambda s$, we visualize that (\[AAA\ ]) is equivalent to $ $ \label{AAAA } 
 1 \leq (k+1) \int_p ^1 e^{(1 - s)\lambda}s^k ds.$$ The proper side of (\[AAAA\ ]) is increasing in $ \lambda$. Since $ \mu'/\lambda' = p$ and $ \lambda' > \lambda$, we have $ F_{\lambda'}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu'}(k)$. bare calculations show that $ e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$ if and entirely if $ $ \label{AAAAA } 
 \lambda \geq \frac{-k \log p}{1 - p}.$$ The leftover side of (\[AAAAA\ ]) is obviously increasing in $ \lambda$. Thus we have that $ e^{-\lambda'}(\lambda')^k \leq 
 e^{-\mu'}(\mu')^k$. 

 For $ x \in { { \mathbb R}}$, let $ { \lfloor adam \rfloor } $ denote its integer part. 

 foremost we show that $ \lambda_c(\mu) \leq \mu +1$. By Corollary   \[auxresults\ ], it suffices to show that if $ \lambda = \mu +1 $, then there is a thinning from $ \lambda$ to $ \mu$. By Theorem   \[main\ ] condition (\[prob\ ]), we must show for some $ k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ that $ F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu}(k) $ and $ e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$. The latter circumstance is satisfied by choosing $ k= { \lfloor   1/\log (1 + 
 1/\mu)   \rfloor } $. As in the proof of Lemma   \[mono\ ], $ F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq 
 F_{\mu}(k)$ if and entirely if $ $ \label{BBBBB } 
 \int_{\mu } ^{\lambda } e^{\mu - t}\Big(\frac{t}{\mu}\Big)^{k+1 } dt \geq 1.$$ So by the change
o\], wf have that $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq
N_{\mu}(k)$ if and only if $$\labxl{AAA}
e^{-\lzmbda} \laobda^{k+1} \leq (k+1) \int_{\mu} ^{\lambda} e^{-t} v^k dr.$$ By uke change of variablds, $t=\lambdw s$, we swe tiat (\[AAA\]) is equivement to $$\label{ZWAA}
1 \nxq (k+1) \int_p ^1 e^{(1-s)\lakbda}s^k ds.$$ Dhe right side ow (\[CAAA\]) is increasing in $\lambda$. Since $\mt'/\lambda' = o$ and $\lambda' > \jambcw$, we have $F_{\lambda'}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu'}(k)$. Simple caldulatiois show that $e^{-\lsmbda}\lambda^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$ if and only if $$\label{AAAAW}
\lambda \geq \fras{-j \log p}{1-p}.$$ The left side of (\[AAAAA\]) is obviously increasing in $\lambda$. Thus we have tyar $e^{-\pdmbda'}(\lambda')^j \leq
v^{-\mu'}(\mu')^k$.

For $x \ik {{\mathbt R}}$, let ${ \lfloor x \rflpor }$ dwnote its integer parv.

First we show that $\jambda_c(\mu) \lzq \mu +1$. By Corollary \[auzrwsultv\], it sufwucer tk xhkw thah ih $\lambda = \mh +1$, then theee is a thinning frpm $\oambda$ to $\mu$. Gy Thejrqm \[main\] condition (\[prob\]), we must show for voms $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ that $F_{\lamvda}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu}(k) $ and $e^{-\lwmbda}\lambqa^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$. The latter condition is satisfied ty chkusiun $y= { \pfloor  1/\log ( 1 +
1/\mu)  \rfloor }$. As in the proof of Jsmka \[kono\], $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \jeq
F_{\mu}(k)$ if snf pgly if $$\label{BCBBB}
\inc_{\ju} ^{\lambda} e^{\mu-t}\Big(\fraf{t}{\mu}\Big)^{h+1} dt \teq 1.$$ So br thr change
o\], we have that $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu}(k)$ only $$\label{AAA} e^{-\lambda} \leq (k+1) \int_{\mu} the of variables, $t=\lambda we see that is equivalent to $$\label{AAAA} 1 \leq \int_p ^1 e^{(1-s)\lambda}s^k ds.$$ The right side of (\[AAAA\]) is increasing in $\lambda$. $\mu'/\lambda' = p$ and $\lambda' > \lambda$, we have $F_{\lambda'}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu'}(k)$. Simple show $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k e^{-\mu}\mu^k$ and only if $$\label{AAAAA} \lambda \geq \frac{-k \log p}{1-p}.$$ The left side of (\[AAAAA\]) is obviously in $\lambda$. Thus we have that $e^{-\lambda'}(\lambda')^k \leq For $x \in {{\mathbb let ${ \lfloor x \rfloor denote integer part. we that \leq \mu +1$. Corollary \[auxresults\], it suffices to show that if $\lambda = \mu +1$, then there is a thinning $\lambda$ to Theorem \[main\] (\[prob\]), must for some $k\in{{\mathbb $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu}(k) $ and $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k latter condition is satisfied by choosing $k= { 1/\log ( + 1/\mu) \rfloor }$. As in proof of Lemma \[mono\], $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu}(k)$ if only if $$\label{BBBBB} \int_{\mu} ^{\lambda} e^{\mu-t}\Big(\frac{t}{\mu}\Big)^{k+1} dt \geq 1.$$ So by the change
o\], we have that $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq
F_{\mu}(K)$ if and only If $$\labEl{AaA}
e^{-\LaMbda} \LambDa^{k+1} \leq (k+1) \int_{\mu} ^{\laMBda} e^{-T} t^k dt.$$ By the change of variAbles, $T=\lAMbda S$, We See thAt (\[AAA\]) is EQuIVAleNt To $$\LabEl{aaAa}
1 \leq (k+1) \Int_P ^1 e^{(1-s)\lambDa}s^k ds.$$ The rIghT sIde of (\[AAAA\]) is iNCrEasing in $\laMbdA$. Since $\mu'/\lambDa' = p$ And $\lamBdA' > \laMBda$, we HavE $F_{\lamBda'}(k+1) \leQ f_{\mu'}(k)$. SiMple calcuLaTIons shOW that $e^{-\lAMBdA}\lamBda^k \leq e^{-\mu}\mu^k$ if anD OnLY if $$\label{AAAAA}
\lAmbda \gEq \FRaC{-K \Log P}{1-p}.$$ THe left side Of (\[aAAAA\]) IS obviouSLy INCReaSIng in $\lambda$. ThUs we have thaT $E^{-\laMbda'}(\laMbDa')^k \LEq
e^{-\mu'}(\mU')^k$.

For $X \iN {{\MatHbb R}}$, let ${ \lfloOr x \rFloor }$ denoTe its iNTeger paRT.

First wE show tHat $\LamBda_c(\MU) \lEq \Mu +1$. BY CORolLArY \[auXResUlts\], it suFfIcEs to sHow tHAT IF $\lamBda = \Mu +1$, thEn theRe is a thinning FroM $\lamBDa$ tO $\mu$. By theorEm \[maIn\] CondiTion (\[prOb\]), we mUsT show for some $k\in{{\MathBb N}}$ that $F_{\lAmbDa}(K+1) \leQ F_{\Mu}(k) $ anD $E^{-\lambdA}\laMbdA^k \leq e^{-\mU}\mu^k$. The LAttEr CONDiTion is satisfied by cHoOSInG $k= { \lfloor  1/\Log ( 1 +
1/\mu)  \rFLoOr }$. aS in the prOoF of lemmA \[MOno\], $F_{\lAmbdA}(K+1) \lEq
F_{\mu}(k)$ if And onlY If $$\LaBel{BBBBb}
\iNt_{\mu} ^{\laMbDa} e^{\Mu-t}\big(\frAC{t}{\mu}\big)^{k+1} dt \Geq 1.$$ So by tHe chaNGe
o\], we have that $F_{\lam bda}(k+1)\leqF_{ \mu }( k)$if a nd only if $$\ l abel {AAA}
e^{-\lambda} \la mbda^ {k + 1} \ l eq  (k+1 ) \int_ { \m u }  ^{ \l am bda }e ^{ -t} t ^kdt.$$ B y the chan geof  variables,$ t= \lambda s$ , w e see that ( \[A AA\])is  eq u ivale ntto $$ \label { AAAA}1 \leq (k +1 )  \int_ p  ^1 e^{ ( 1 -s )\la mbda}s^k ds.$$ Th e  r i ght side of (\ [AAAA\ ]) is i ncr eas ing in $\l am bda$. Since $ \ mu ' / \ lam b da' = p$ and$\lambda' > \la mbda$,  w e h a ve $F_ {\lam bd a '}( k+1) \leq F _{\m u'}(k)$.Simple calcula t ions sh ow tha t $ e^{ -\la m bd a} \la mb d a^k \l eqe ^{- \mu}\mu^ k$  i f and  onl y i f  $$\ lab el{A AAAA} 
\lambda \geq  \f rac{ - k \ log p }{1-p }.$$  T he le ft sid e of(\ [AAAAA\]) is ob viou sly incre asi ng  in  $ \lamb d a$. Th uswehave th at $e^{ - \la mb d a ' }( \lambda')^k \leq
e ^{ - \ mu '}(\mu') ^k$.
F or  $ x  \in {{\ ma thb b R} } $ , let  ${\ lf loor x \ rfloor }$  d enote i ts  integ er  pa rt. 

Fir s t we  showthat $\l ambda _ c(\mu) \leq \m u  +1$. By Coro l la r y  \ [ auxr esu lts\], it s uffi c es t o sh o wtha t  if $ \lamb da =\ mu +1$, then thereis  a thi nning  from $\lambd a$ to $\mu $ . By Theor em \ [ ma i n\] condition(\[pr ob\]), wem ust show  forsome $k\ in{{\math b b  N}}$ th at$F_ {\l amb d a }( k+1) \leq F_{ \ m u}(k )$ and $ e^{ -\lambd a}\ lam bda ^k\l eq e^{-\m u}\mu^k$ .Th ela tte r con d ition is  s ati sf ied  by c h oosing  $k={ \l fl oo r   1 /\log ( 1+ 1/\m u)  \rfl oor  } $. As  int heproof o f Lemma \ [mo n o\],  $ F_ {\lambd a}(k+1) \leqF_ {\mu}(k)$if  an d only i f $$\lab el{BBBBB}
\int_{\mu} ^{ \ lambda}  e^ {\mu- t}\B ig(\frac{ t}{ \mu}\B ig) ^ {k+1}dt \ge q 1.$ $Sob y  thec h an ge
o\], we_have that_$F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq
F_{\mu}(k)$ if and_only if_$$\label{AAA}
e^{-\lambda}_\lambda^{k+1} \leq_(k+1)_\int_{\mu} ^{\lambda} e^{-t}_t^k dt.$$ By_the change of variables,_$t=\lambda s$, we_see_that (\[AAA\]) is equivalent to $$\label{AAAA}
1 \leq (k+1) \int_p ^1 e^{(1-s)\lambda}s^k ds.$$ The right_side_of (\[AAAA\])_is_increasing_in $\lambda$. Since $\mu'/\lambda' =_p$ and $\lambda' > \lambda$,_we have_$F_{\lambda'}(k+1) \leq F_{\mu'}(k)$. Simple calculations show that $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k_\leq_e^{-\mu}\mu^k$ if and_only if $$\label{AAAAA}
\lambda \geq \frac{-k \log p}{1-p}.$$ The left_side of (\[AAAAA\]) is obviously increasing_in $\lambda$. Thus_we_have_that $e^{-\lambda'}(\lambda')^k \leq
e^{-\mu'}(\mu')^k$.

For $x_\in {{\mathbb R}}$, let ${ \lfloor_x \rfloor }$ denote its integer_part.

First we show that $\lambda_c(\mu) \leq \mu_+1$. By Corollary \[auxresults\], it suffices to_show that if $\lambda =_\mu +1$,_then there is a thinning_from $\lambda$ to_$\mu$. By_Theorem \[main\] condition (\[prob\]),_we must show for some $k\in{{\mathbb_N}}$ that $F_{\lambda}(k+1)_\leq F_{\mu}(k) $ and $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k \leq_e^{-\mu}\mu^k$._The latter condition_is_satisfied_by choosing_$k= { \lfloor__1/\log (_1_+
1/\mu)  \rfloor }$. As in_the_proof of Lemma \[mono\], $F_{\lambda}(k+1) \leq
F_{\mu}(k)$ if and_only if $$\label{BBBBB}
\int_{\mu} ^{\lambda}_e^{\mu-t}\Big(\frac{t}{\mu}\Big)^{k+1}_dt \geq 1.$$ So_by the change