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

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
763
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.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

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