Explaining the Continued Fraction Identity for arctan(x)

  • Thread starter Thread starter rbzima
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the identity relating the sum of terms involving a series of coefficients (a_0, a_1, a_2, etc.) to a continued fraction representation of arctan(x). It emphasizes that rewriting the right-hand side as a product can clarify how the identity emerges. Participants note that analyzing the identity recursively by defining nth convergents can provide a rigorous approach. Additionally, the conversation highlights that the Taylor series for arctan(x) converges slowly compared to the faster convergence of the continued fraction. The mention of Machin's formula illustrates the practical implications of convergence rates in calculating π.
rbzima
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding a simple identity and was wondering if anyone could explain it to me:

Why is it that a_{o}+a_{1}+a_{1}a_{2}+a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}+a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}a_{4}... is equivalent to the continued fraction in the form:a_{0}+\frac{a_{1}}{1-\frac{a_{2}}{1+a_{2}-\frac{a_{3}}{1+a_{3}-...}}}}

What then should I do to make arctan(x) look something like the above continued fraction. Any advice would be fantastic!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The a0 term is obvious. Just focus on the continued fraction itself:

a_{0}+\frac{a_{1}}{1-\frac{a_{2}}{1+a_{2}-\frac{a_{3}}{1+a_{3}-...}}}} =<br /> a_1+a_1a_2 + a_1a_2a_3 + a_1a_2a_3a_4 +\cdots

Rewriting the RHS as

a_1(1+a_2(1+a_3(1+a_4(\cdots

might help you see how this identity falls out.

To do this rigorously, look at the identity recursively by defining the nth convergent that results by setting a_{n+1}, a_{n+2}, \cdots to zero.

I have to run off to work, so I can't help much more. Final note: The Taylor series for arctan(x) converges very slowly. The convergence of the continued fraction is much, much faster.
 
D H said:
The a0 term is obvious. Just focus on the continued fraction itself:

a_{0}+\frac{a_{1}}{1-\frac{a_{2}}{1+a_{2}-\frac{a_{3}}{1+a_{3}-...}}}} =<br /> a_1+a_1a_2 + a_1a_2a_3 + a_1a_2a_3a_4 +\cdots

Rewriting the RHS as

a_1(1+a_2(1+a_3(1+a_4(\cdots

might help you see how this identity falls out.

To do this rigorously, look at the identity recursively by defining the nth convergent that results by setting a_{n+1}, a_{n+2}, \cdots to zero.

I have to run off to work, so I can't help much more. Final note: The Taylor series for arctan(x) converges very slowly. The convergence of the continued fraction is much, much faster.

Thanks bro! I never saw the multiplicative form before, so that helps a lot. BTW, I figured that the Taylor series for arctan(x) was a slower convergence. When you use Machin's formula for \frac{\pi}{4}, it requires 71 terms until you reach convergence with 100 decimal place accuracy.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top