Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #26 20130212 03:55:53
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyNice! I got it! Thank you for making it challenging!)) #27 20130212 03:56:51
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyHi; Last edited by bobbym (20130212 04:03:27) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #29 20130212 20:28:11
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyI am afraid not. It is even easier than that. Last edited by bobbym (20130212 20:35:13) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #31 20130212 20:37:23
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyBecause we do not need to subtract anything! Please hold on the answer is simple but to write it up takes time. Last edited by bobbym (20130212 20:41:14) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #33 20130212 21:12:03
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyHi; So the error from summing the first 3 terms is less than 6.78168402E6. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #35 20130212 21:26:55
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyHi;
We can improve that easily. Are they still forcing people to use that language? Last edited by bobbym (20130212 23:05:21) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #36 20130213 00:15:06
Re: Calculation with a given accuracy
yep, they are. ((
No idea. Maybe because it is short and simple!?)) #37 20130213 00:35:01
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #40 20130213 02:01:31
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyWhat do you want to use for epsilon, digits that match or the alternating error estimate? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #41 20130213 02:08:45
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyEpsilon is given: #42 20130213 02:15:01
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyWe have to know what error we have from k terms to know when it is smaller than epsilon. Do we use the alternating series estimate of the error or matching digits? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #44 20130213 02:39:15
Re: Calculation with a given accuracyHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 