Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °
You are not logged in.
Post a reply
Topic review (newest first)
They are often filled with incorrect data.
weird. why are government publications so annoying???
im afraid that the equation is giving me similar incorrect values for the values i got wrong, and the correct values that i got correct. weird
Thanks! but what about for s<2?
You don't need to:
Try that. It is accurate for s >= 2 and z > 0.
ooh... could you? im terrible with finding programs i need/want
The lower incomplete is not what you want. You want the upper and remember your your function divides by gamma(a).
weird. i just remembered to look at wolfram, and i found another way to do it: 1 - lower_incomplete_gamma (the equation involving sigma), but the values that come out are weird. some values come out correctly, but others dont
Yes, there are some other forms, that might be even easier for computation. It looks pretty stable though. It is a good book and a must for numerical work.
oops. forgot that dt
This numerator is an upper incomplete gamma function and you only have to look up how to evaluate it. The abramowitz stegun book might help.
There is a neat continued fraction:
so the functions are transformed some how? how would that work for a small program? a large library of familiar functions? that would be crazy
If we try to use simpsons rule on it we need 100 panels to get .66585. If we now transform the integral into:
Now using simpsons rule and 100 panels we get .666666666
This is a much better answer for the same amount of work.
Same thing for your question.