Why does this trick work? Screenshot inside

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tamtam402
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a mathematical "trick" related to summing a series, specifically addressing the discrepancy between the number of terms needed to achieve a certain error threshold in two different contexts. Participants are exploring the theoretical underpinnings of this method as presented in a mathematical methods textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the requirement for a large number of terms to achieve a specific error margin, despite finding that approximately 130 terms suffice in their calculations.
  • Another participant suggests that the method of summation affects the number of terms needed to achieve the desired accuracy, implying that different approaches to summing the series can lead to varying results regarding error reduction.
  • A participant notes that the textbook provides two seemingly contradictory statements regarding the number of terms required, seeking clarification on the reasoning behind this.
  • There is mention of an external resource that discusses approximation by integrals, although its relevance to the specific trick in question is questioned by a participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the explanation for the method's effectiveness, with ongoing confusion and differing interpretations of the textbook's statements regarding the number of terms needed for accuracy.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the textbook's explanations, particularly regarding the assumptions made about the summation methods and the conditions under which the error estimates apply.

tamtam402
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Why does this "trick" work? Screenshot inside

I managed to do the computations but unfortunately I don't understand why the trick works in part b). It is said that N has to be very very big to find the answer within 0.005, yet in part b I find N ≈ 130 (which I know is right). That means the solution can now be found with error < 0.005 with only 130 terms. Is that right? Could someone explain to me what's going on brievely? This is a scan from Mary L Boas mathematical methods book which I'm self-learning from, and unfortunately this is the only information found on this trick to evaluate the error.
 

Attachments

  • q.PNG
    q.PNG
    16.2 KB · Views: 513
Physics news on Phys.org


Thanks for replying. Unfortunately the linked website wasn't much help, I already figured out how to use the given expressions to bind a series, but I was hoping someone would explain to me why that method works. I'm mostly confused by the 2 steps listed in my book: first it is stated that a very big number of terms is necessary to get an answer with an error < 0.005, yet immediately after that I'm given the formula to get the answer with an error < 0.005 using only ~130 terms. What's going on?
 


The difference lies in how you sum the series, which is what this example is trying to get at. Summing the terms one by one requires many, many terms to ensure the error falls into place, but this alternative method (whatever that is; "Figures 6.1 and 6.2" are not in the picture) seems to make it clear that you can massage the error to decrease much faster.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
959
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K