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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

Yes, the general form for a simple cf is

**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.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

But how do you show that

and

are the same?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

They are not the same obviously but we might be able to prove they both converge to the same thing.

**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.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

They said something about evaluating that first fraction at every second term, to get the second fraction...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

And how does that prove they are the same?

**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.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

It doesn't but they are claiming there is a way to get the simple CF from the first one...

Or maybe just someone on Wikipedia typed it for the hell of it? Maybe that's why they didn't elaborate on what they meant exactly...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

I do not see any way right now of deriving one from the other.

But I can prove they both converge to the same thing.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

What methods of proof do you use?

Also, still nothing from adriana...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

Consider her dead meat.

It is possible to prove what they converge to by algebra and a little trickery.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

You may be right... this could venture into F territory. Something is wrong. Just a pity it ended so abruptly.

You mean trying to generate the CF?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

No;

Take a look at the first cf and call it x

*Last edited by bobbym (2013-02-25 07:27:21)*

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Sorry, I had to take my sister to my grandmother's house.

I see, you just get the fraction on its own, invert it, and repeat, and you end up with a quadratic which has a root at x = √3. I imagine the same thing would work for the other CF.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

Hi;

when you solve for x you get √3

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Yes, that is what I meant -- eventually when you follow those steps, you get the original fraction (x again).

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

Yes, somewhere in th cf there will be a repeat of x. You just replace it and solve for x.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

That seems pretty handy to check if these Wikipedia CFs converge as they're supposed to... but, I suppose this method might be hairy if you have a long period, for large n, say.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

It is easier to use numerical methods and arrive at an experimental result.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

We looked at continued fractions and applying them to solve Pell's equation, are there any applications of infinite nested square roots? Those seem interesting too.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

I do not know of any offhand apps but they are solved in the same way as a cf.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Yes, I have read about them. The Wiki article is a lot shorter than the CFs one though.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

They are less useful apparently. CF's are very big in number theory and numerical analysis.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

What other things are they used for in number theory?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

Just for the Fermat - Pell equation as far as I know. But these are an important class of diophantine equations. They are more important I think in numerical analysis.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

A girl asked me what I was doing today in chemistry, I was trying to solve a Pell equation using one of my CFs. When I tried to show her what a CF was, she said "I'd rather paint my nails".

23:53, nothing from adriana at all. Sigh...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,706

Yikes, an intellectual!

I got another method for CF's.

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.

Offline