B Error in approximation to log(223)/log(3) .... senior moment?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the approximation of log(223)/log(3) and the confusion regarding the error in the calculations. Initially, an approximation was presented that showed a significant error of 0.0399292, which was later corrected to around 4E-10. The participant noted that the difference between two large numbers should yield a larger error than the difference between smaller numbers, which contributed to their confusion. The error was attributed to selecting the wrong value from the output list during calculations. Ultimately, the participant clarified their misunderstanding and acknowledged the mistake.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,032
Reaction score
770
This is probably a silly question, but I am really stuck. A possible senior moment, is my only excuse.

Here is an approximation:
##log(223)/log(3) \approx 10818288 / 2198026 ##

So we have:
##log(223)/log(3) - 10818288 / 2198026 = 0.0399292##
which is OK but not great -- the error shows up right at the second decimal.

But when we do this:
##10818288 \times log(223) - 2198026 \times log(3)## it gives us -0.000984652, which looks way better.

I would expect the error between two large numbers to be larger than when the same thing is recast as a difference between two small numbers. Again, it's probably a silly thing that I'm missing, but I haven't been able to find it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Oops, the 0.0399 is not correct, it is actually around 4E-10. I was printing out 5 or 6 things and picked the wrong value from the output list.
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top