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
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top