Continuous Compounding Interest

AI Thread Summary
Continuous compounding should yield a greater amount than regular compounding when calculated correctly. The confusion arises when the annual interest rate is not divided by the number of compounding periods per year. In the example provided, using a high compounding frequency led to a misunderstanding of the results. The calculations show that the continuous compounding formula indeed produces a slightly higher amount than the regular compounding formula. Accurate application of the formulas is essential for correct comparisons.
ecoo
Messages
86
Reaction score
2
Hello

So from what I understand, the continuous compound formula finds out the most you can get from interest no matter how many times you compound the interest in a set amount of time. So how come when I plugin in a big number into the regular compounding formula for the rate, the end amount is more than the amount I get when calculating with the continuous compounding formula? I think that it's a calculator inaccuracy, or is my view incorrect?

Thanks for the help!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
ecoo said:
Hello

So from what I understand, the continuous compound formula finds out the most you can get from interest no matter how many times you compound the interest in a set amount of time. So how come when I plugin in a big number into the regular compounding formula for the rate, the end amount is more than the amount I get when calculating with the continuous compounding formula? I think that it's a calculator inaccuracy, or is my view incorrect?

Thanks for the help!
Interest compounded continuously should give the larger amount. Can you show us an example where the normal compounding formula seems to give a larger interest amount?

Are you forgetting to divide the annual interest rate by the number of compounding periods per year?
 
Mark44 said:
Interest compounded continuously should give the larger amount. Can you show us an example where the normal compounding formula seems to give a larger interest amount?

Are you forgetting to divide the annual interest rate by the number of compounding periods per year?
So for example, if I use the regular compounding interest for 6% for 10 years, and the rate is 999999999999 (add more if you want), then the answer is more than the continuous equation result. Besides the answer, is my thinking correct?
 
Noncontinuous: A_{noncont}=P(1+\frac{0.06}{999999999999})^{10\times999999999999}=1.82124518238P
Continuous: A_{cont}=Pe^{(0.06\times10)}=1.82211880039P
A_{noncont}<A_{cont}
 
ecoo said:
So for example, if I use the regular compounding interest for 6% for 10 years, and the rate is 999999999999 (add more if you want), then the answer is more than the continuous equation result. Besides the answer, is my thinking correct?
The rate refers to the interest rate, which in your example is 6%. The periodic interest rate would be .06/999999999999.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...
Back
Top