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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the approximation of the logarithmic expression log(223)/log(3) and the associated error calculations. The initial approximation yielded an error of approximately 0.0399292, which was later corrected to around 4E-10. The user noted that using the expression 10818288 × log(223) - 2198026 × log(3) resulted in a significantly smaller error of -0.000984652. This highlights the importance of careful numerical representation and error analysis in logarithmic calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logarithmic functions and properties
  • Familiarity with numerical approximation techniques
  • Basic knowledge of error analysis in mathematical computations
  • Experience with programming or tools for numerical calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study numerical methods for logarithmic approximations
  • Explore error analysis techniques in computational mathematics
  • Learn about the properties of logarithms in different bases
  • Investigate the use of programming languages like Python for numerical calculations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, data scientists, and anyone involved in numerical analysis or computational mathematics will benefit from this discussion.

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
775
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K