How can we converge to transcendental numbers beyond e?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob3141592
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Converging
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores methods of converging to transcendental numbers beyond e, emphasizing that while many numbers are transcendental, only a few have concise series representations. It highlights that if a function f(x) converges to F, then e^f(x) converges to G=e^F, applicable to all continuous functions. The conversation also notes that transcendental numbers like π can be expressed as infinite decimal expansions, with different series converging to their values. It asserts that distinct numbers can have vastly different series representations even if they are numerically close. The variety of series that converge to specific values is a fascinating aspect of mathematical analysis.
Bob3141592
Messages
236
Reaction score
2
e is the limit of an exponential of a number that is approaching one. The exponential makes it want to blow up, but the closeness to 1 keeps that in check. It's really a remarkable number!

My question is, how easy is it to find ways to converge to arbitrary numbers other then e? Almost every number is transcendental so they require such a convergence. A very few of them have fascinatingly concise series, and a remarkable variety of ways to get to that number. But for the rest, how do we get to them?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If f(x) converges to F, then ##e^{f(x)}## converges to ##G=e^F##. For every positive G there is a suitable F=log(G).
This is not limited to exponentiation, this rule works for every continuous function. If f(x) converges to F, then ##2*f(x)## converges to ##G=2*F##.

What do you mean with "get" a number? Here is a transcendal number: ##\pi##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Every real number can be written as a decimal and, for any irrational number (and most rational numbers), that decimal expansion is an infinite decimal expansion. That is, every such number, which includes all transcendental numbers, can be written as the infinite sequence of it decimal expansions. For example, \pi is the limit of the infinite sequence 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 3.14159, 3.141592, 3.1415926, ...
 
I have a hard time phrasing this question, so my apologies in advance. e and pi are both very special numbers, with very special properties. Not only do they have really cool ways to define them, but a variety of series converge to exactly their values. That is, a variety of series without arbitrary constants. To me, that's awesomely amazing.

The series that let us know the value of e look nothing like the series that let us know the value of pi. This is true in general, isn't it? Two different numbers could be close to each other in value but have wildly different series convergent to them, and this remains true even as they get increasingly close to each other, as long as they remain different. Is that a true statement?
 
Bob3141592 said:
but a variety of series converge to exactly their values

This is true for many series. For example:

\frac{1}{1} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{16} + ... = 2

\frac{1}{1} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{10} + \frac{1}{15} + ... = 2

\frac{3}{1} - \frac{3}{2} + \frac{3}{4} - \frac{3}{8} + \frac{3}{16} - ... = 2
 
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