Using $ sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=frac1e$ evaluate first $3$ decimal digits of $1/e$.












4















Using the series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=frac{1}{e}$, evaluate the first $3$ decimal digits of $1/e$.




Attempt. In alternating series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}(-1)^{k+1}alpha_n$, where $alpha_n searrow 0$, if $alpha$ is the sum of the series then $$|s_n-alpha|leq alpha_{n+1}.$$ So, in our case we need to find $n$
such that $|s_n-1/e|<0.001$, where $displaystyle s_n=sum_{k=0}^{n-1}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$ and it is enough to find $n$ such that $dfrac{1}{n!}<0.001$, so $ngeq 7$. Therefore:



$$s_7=sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=0.36805ldots$$



so I would expect $dfrac{1}{e}=0.368ldots$. But:
$dfrac{1}{e}=0.36787944ldots$.



Where am I missing something?



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    0.3678+0.0002=0.368 and 0.0002<0.001.
    – Régis
    Oct 23 at 22:39












  • Ι see. When we want to approximate a number $alpha$ by $alpha_n$ up to $k$ decimal digits, we take $|alpha_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$. In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by $alpha_n$ are the exact digits of $alpha$? $k-1$ maybe?
    – Nikolaos Skout
    Oct 23 at 22:54










  • "so I would expect $frac 1e=0.368….$ But: $frac 1e=0.36787944….$" And those two numbers are equal to be first three decimal places. If you round $frac 1e=0.36787944….$ to the nearest $0.001$ you get $0.368$, don't you?
    – fleablood
    Oct 23 at 23:26










  • " In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by αn are the exact digits of α? k−1 maybe?" If you round down then you expect them all to be the same. If you round up it depends on how many trailing 9s you have. The trailing 9s go to 0 and the last non 9 goes up by 1. And all the earlier ones are exactly the same.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:04










  • This is the calculator age, I guess..... To round you don't just cut off after the the first k digits. $1.58673948605903$ to the first five digits isn't $1.58673$ with the $948605903$ cut off. Because the $0.00000948605903$ is closer to $0.00001$ than it is to $0.00000$ so you round $0.00000948605903$ to $0.00001$ and not to $0.00000$ so $1.58673948605903$ is $1.58674$ and not the $3$. There's no reason to expect the digits to be the same. Just withing $10^{-k}$ Which could be none of the digits. $1.999999857385205$ rounds to $2.000$ and not to $1.999$.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:25
















4















Using the series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=frac{1}{e}$, evaluate the first $3$ decimal digits of $1/e$.




Attempt. In alternating series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}(-1)^{k+1}alpha_n$, where $alpha_n searrow 0$, if $alpha$ is the sum of the series then $$|s_n-alpha|leq alpha_{n+1}.$$ So, in our case we need to find $n$
such that $|s_n-1/e|<0.001$, where $displaystyle s_n=sum_{k=0}^{n-1}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$ and it is enough to find $n$ such that $dfrac{1}{n!}<0.001$, so $ngeq 7$. Therefore:



$$s_7=sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=0.36805ldots$$



so I would expect $dfrac{1}{e}=0.368ldots$. But:
$dfrac{1}{e}=0.36787944ldots$.



Where am I missing something?



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    0.3678+0.0002=0.368 and 0.0002<0.001.
    – Régis
    Oct 23 at 22:39












  • Ι see. When we want to approximate a number $alpha$ by $alpha_n$ up to $k$ decimal digits, we take $|alpha_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$. In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by $alpha_n$ are the exact digits of $alpha$? $k-1$ maybe?
    – Nikolaos Skout
    Oct 23 at 22:54










  • "so I would expect $frac 1e=0.368….$ But: $frac 1e=0.36787944….$" And those two numbers are equal to be first three decimal places. If you round $frac 1e=0.36787944….$ to the nearest $0.001$ you get $0.368$, don't you?
    – fleablood
    Oct 23 at 23:26










  • " In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by αn are the exact digits of α? k−1 maybe?" If you round down then you expect them all to be the same. If you round up it depends on how many trailing 9s you have. The trailing 9s go to 0 and the last non 9 goes up by 1. And all the earlier ones are exactly the same.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:04










  • This is the calculator age, I guess..... To round you don't just cut off after the the first k digits. $1.58673948605903$ to the first five digits isn't $1.58673$ with the $948605903$ cut off. Because the $0.00000948605903$ is closer to $0.00001$ than it is to $0.00000$ so you round $0.00000948605903$ to $0.00001$ and not to $0.00000$ so $1.58673948605903$ is $1.58674$ and not the $3$. There's no reason to expect the digits to be the same. Just withing $10^{-k}$ Which could be none of the digits. $1.999999857385205$ rounds to $2.000$ and not to $1.999$.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:25














4












4








4








Using the series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=frac{1}{e}$, evaluate the first $3$ decimal digits of $1/e$.




Attempt. In alternating series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}(-1)^{k+1}alpha_n$, where $alpha_n searrow 0$, if $alpha$ is the sum of the series then $$|s_n-alpha|leq alpha_{n+1}.$$ So, in our case we need to find $n$
such that $|s_n-1/e|<0.001$, where $displaystyle s_n=sum_{k=0}^{n-1}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$ and it is enough to find $n$ such that $dfrac{1}{n!}<0.001$, so $ngeq 7$. Therefore:



$$s_7=sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=0.36805ldots$$



so I would expect $dfrac{1}{e}=0.368ldots$. But:
$dfrac{1}{e}=0.36787944ldots$.



Where am I missing something?



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question
















Using the series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=frac{1}{e}$, evaluate the first $3$ decimal digits of $1/e$.




Attempt. In alternating series $displaystyle sum_{k=0}^{infty}(-1)^{k+1}alpha_n$, where $alpha_n searrow 0$, if $alpha$ is the sum of the series then $$|s_n-alpha|leq alpha_{n+1}.$$ So, in our case we need to find $n$
such that $|s_n-1/e|<0.001$, where $displaystyle s_n=sum_{k=0}^{n-1}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$ and it is enough to find $n$ such that $dfrac{1}{n!}<0.001$, so $ngeq 7$. Therefore:



$$s_7=sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=0.36805ldots$$



so I would expect $dfrac{1}{e}=0.368ldots$. But:
$dfrac{1}{e}=0.36787944ldots$.



Where am I missing something?



Thanks in advance.







calculus sequences-and-series exponential-function






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 26 at 19:38









Martin Sleziak

44.6k7115270




44.6k7115270










asked Oct 23 at 22:36









Nikolaos Skout

2,107416




2,107416








  • 2




    0.3678+0.0002=0.368 and 0.0002<0.001.
    – Régis
    Oct 23 at 22:39












  • Ι see. When we want to approximate a number $alpha$ by $alpha_n$ up to $k$ decimal digits, we take $|alpha_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$. In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by $alpha_n$ are the exact digits of $alpha$? $k-1$ maybe?
    – Nikolaos Skout
    Oct 23 at 22:54










  • "so I would expect $frac 1e=0.368….$ But: $frac 1e=0.36787944….$" And those two numbers are equal to be first three decimal places. If you round $frac 1e=0.36787944….$ to the nearest $0.001$ you get $0.368$, don't you?
    – fleablood
    Oct 23 at 23:26










  • " In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by αn are the exact digits of α? k−1 maybe?" If you round down then you expect them all to be the same. If you round up it depends on how many trailing 9s you have. The trailing 9s go to 0 and the last non 9 goes up by 1. And all the earlier ones are exactly the same.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:04










  • This is the calculator age, I guess..... To round you don't just cut off after the the first k digits. $1.58673948605903$ to the first five digits isn't $1.58673$ with the $948605903$ cut off. Because the $0.00000948605903$ is closer to $0.00001$ than it is to $0.00000$ so you round $0.00000948605903$ to $0.00001$ and not to $0.00000$ so $1.58673948605903$ is $1.58674$ and not the $3$. There's no reason to expect the digits to be the same. Just withing $10^{-k}$ Which could be none of the digits. $1.999999857385205$ rounds to $2.000$ and not to $1.999$.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:25














  • 2




    0.3678+0.0002=0.368 and 0.0002<0.001.
    – Régis
    Oct 23 at 22:39












  • Ι see. When we want to approximate a number $alpha$ by $alpha_n$ up to $k$ decimal digits, we take $|alpha_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$. In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by $alpha_n$ are the exact digits of $alpha$? $k-1$ maybe?
    – Nikolaos Skout
    Oct 23 at 22:54










  • "so I would expect $frac 1e=0.368….$ But: $frac 1e=0.36787944….$" And those two numbers are equal to be first three decimal places. If you round $frac 1e=0.36787944….$ to the nearest $0.001$ you get $0.368$, don't you?
    – fleablood
    Oct 23 at 23:26










  • " In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by αn are the exact digits of α? k−1 maybe?" If you round down then you expect them all to be the same. If you round up it depends on how many trailing 9s you have. The trailing 9s go to 0 and the last non 9 goes up by 1. And all the earlier ones are exactly the same.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:04










  • This is the calculator age, I guess..... To round you don't just cut off after the the first k digits. $1.58673948605903$ to the first five digits isn't $1.58673$ with the $948605903$ cut off. Because the $0.00000948605903$ is closer to $0.00001$ than it is to $0.00000$ so you round $0.00000948605903$ to $0.00001$ and not to $0.00000$ so $1.58673948605903$ is $1.58674$ and not the $3$. There's no reason to expect the digits to be the same. Just withing $10^{-k}$ Which could be none of the digits. $1.999999857385205$ rounds to $2.000$ and not to $1.999$.
    – fleablood
    Oct 24 at 0:25








2




2




0.3678+0.0002=0.368 and 0.0002<0.001.
– Régis
Oct 23 at 22:39






0.3678+0.0002=0.368 and 0.0002<0.001.
– Régis
Oct 23 at 22:39














Ι see. When we want to approximate a number $alpha$ by $alpha_n$ up to $k$ decimal digits, we take $|alpha_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$. In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by $alpha_n$ are the exact digits of $alpha$? $k-1$ maybe?
– Nikolaos Skout
Oct 23 at 22:54




Ι see. When we want to approximate a number $alpha$ by $alpha_n$ up to $k$ decimal digits, we take $|alpha_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$. In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by $alpha_n$ are the exact digits of $alpha$? $k-1$ maybe?
– Nikolaos Skout
Oct 23 at 22:54












"so I would expect $frac 1e=0.368….$ But: $frac 1e=0.36787944….$" And those two numbers are equal to be first three decimal places. If you round $frac 1e=0.36787944….$ to the nearest $0.001$ you get $0.368$, don't you?
– fleablood
Oct 23 at 23:26




"so I would expect $frac 1e=0.368….$ But: $frac 1e=0.36787944….$" And those two numbers are equal to be first three decimal places. If you round $frac 1e=0.36787944….$ to the nearest $0.001$ you get $0.368$, don't you?
– fleablood
Oct 23 at 23:26












" In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by αn are the exact digits of α? k−1 maybe?" If you round down then you expect them all to be the same. If you round up it depends on how many trailing 9s you have. The trailing 9s go to 0 and the last non 9 goes up by 1. And all the earlier ones are exactly the same.
– fleablood
Oct 24 at 0:04




" In this case how many of the digits we evaluate by αn are the exact digits of α? k−1 maybe?" If you round down then you expect them all to be the same. If you round up it depends on how many trailing 9s you have. The trailing 9s go to 0 and the last non 9 goes up by 1. And all the earlier ones are exactly the same.
– fleablood
Oct 24 at 0:04












This is the calculator age, I guess..... To round you don't just cut off after the the first k digits. $1.58673948605903$ to the first five digits isn't $1.58673$ with the $948605903$ cut off. Because the $0.00000948605903$ is closer to $0.00001$ than it is to $0.00000$ so you round $0.00000948605903$ to $0.00001$ and not to $0.00000$ so $1.58673948605903$ is $1.58674$ and not the $3$. There's no reason to expect the digits to be the same. Just withing $10^{-k}$ Which could be none of the digits. $1.999999857385205$ rounds to $2.000$ and not to $1.999$.
– fleablood
Oct 24 at 0:25




This is the calculator age, I guess..... To round you don't just cut off after the the first k digits. $1.58673948605903$ to the first five digits isn't $1.58673$ with the $948605903$ cut off. Because the $0.00000948605903$ is closer to $0.00001$ than it is to $0.00000$ so you round $0.00000948605903$ to $0.00001$ and not to $0.00000$ so $1.58673948605903$ is $1.58674$ and not the $3$. There's no reason to expect the digits to be the same. Just withing $10^{-k}$ Which could be none of the digits. $1.999999857385205$ rounds to $2.000$ and not to $1.999$.
– fleablood
Oct 24 at 0:25










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















5














To know the first three digits in the decimal expansion of $e^{-1}$ you don't want $n$ such that
$$|s_n-e^{-1}|<0.001,$$
but in stead you want $n$ such that $|s_n-e^{-1}|$ is strictly less than the part of $e^{-1}$ after the first three digits. Denoting the fractional part of a real number $x$ by ${x}$, this can be formally described as
$$|s_n-e^{-1}|<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|,$$
so it suffices to find $n$ such that
$$frac{1}{n!}<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|.$$
As your computations show $n=7$ does not suffice; you've found that
$$s_7=0.3680555...qquadtext{ but }qquad 0.0000555...<frac{1}{7!}.$$ A little more work shows that $n=8$ does suffice; indeed
$$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer































    1















    Where am I missing something?




    Um... nowhere?



    $|s_7 - frac 1e| = |0.36805.... - 0.36787944| approx 0.00017056... < 0.001$



    And $|0.368 - frac 1e| = .00012055882855767840447622983853913..... < 0.001$



    So... why do you think you are missing something?






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
      – Nikolaos Skout
      Oct 23 at 23:40










    • " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
      – fleablood
      Oct 23 at 23:53












    • "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
      – fleablood
      Oct 24 at 0:00



















    0














    so we know:
    $$S=sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}=frac{1}{e}$$
    and we want to know this $frac1e$. To do this we simply evaluate terms of the sequence until it is consistant to 3 decimal decimal places.
    $$a_0=frac11=1$$
    $$a_0+a_1=1+frac{-1}1=0$$
    $$a_0+a_1+a_2=0+frac{1}{2}=frac{1}{2}=0.5$$
    $$a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3=frac{1}{2}+frac{-1}{6}=frac{1}{3}approx0.333$$
    $$a_0...+a_4=frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{24}=frac{3}{8}=0.375$$
    $$a_0...+a_5=frac{3}{8}+frac{-1}{120}approx0.367$$
    If you continue this in the way that you did then you do indeed end up with $0.368$ which is correct to 3 decimal places, so you have missed nothing






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
      – Ian
      Oct 24 at 0:41










    • If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
      – Henry Lee
      Oct 24 at 0:44



















    0














    Making the problem more general, you want to compute $p$ such that
    $$S_p=sum_{k=0}^{p}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$$ such that
    $$frac{1}{(p+1)!} le 10^{-n}$$ $n$ being the number of significant decimal places you need.



    If you look at this question of mine, you will see a magnificent approximation by @robjohn for the inverse of the factorial function.



    Applied to your case $(a=1)$, this would give
    $$color{blue}{p=frac{n log (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 Wleft(frac{n log
    (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 e}right)}-frac 32}$$
    where appears Lambert function that you can evaluate using the expansions given in the linked Wikipedia page.



    For $n=3$, this would give, as a real number, $p=5.17$. So, you need to use $p=6$. Let us check : $frac 1 {7!}=frac{1}{5040}approx 0.00020$ while $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      0














      Note
      $$bigg|sum_{k=0}^{n}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=bigg|sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}bigg|lesum_{k=n+1}^inftyfrac{1}{3^{k}}lefrac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}.$$
      Let $frac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}<0.001$ and then $n>frac{ln500}{ln 3}approx5.65678$. Now set $n=6$ and then
      $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|<0.001. $$
      In fact, it is easy to see
      $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{5}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.001212774505,bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.0001761143841<0.001. $$
      So $n=6$ is the small number such that $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2968360%2fusing-sum-k-0-infty-frac-1kk-frac1e-evaluate-first-3-decim%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        5














        To know the first three digits in the decimal expansion of $e^{-1}$ you don't want $n$ such that
        $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<0.001,$$
        but in stead you want $n$ such that $|s_n-e^{-1}|$ is strictly less than the part of $e^{-1}$ after the first three digits. Denoting the fractional part of a real number $x$ by ${x}$, this can be formally described as
        $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|,$$
        so it suffices to find $n$ such that
        $$frac{1}{n!}<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|.$$
        As your computations show $n=7$ does not suffice; you've found that
        $$s_7=0.3680555...qquadtext{ but }qquad 0.0000555...<frac{1}{7!}.$$ A little more work shows that $n=8$ does suffice; indeed
        $$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          5














          To know the first three digits in the decimal expansion of $e^{-1}$ you don't want $n$ such that
          $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<0.001,$$
          but in stead you want $n$ such that $|s_n-e^{-1}|$ is strictly less than the part of $e^{-1}$ after the first three digits. Denoting the fractional part of a real number $x$ by ${x}$, this can be formally described as
          $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|,$$
          so it suffices to find $n$ such that
          $$frac{1}{n!}<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|.$$
          As your computations show $n=7$ does not suffice; you've found that
          $$s_7=0.3680555...qquadtext{ but }qquad 0.0000555...<frac{1}{7!}.$$ A little more work shows that $n=8$ does suffice; indeed
          $$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            5












            5








            5






            To know the first three digits in the decimal expansion of $e^{-1}$ you don't want $n$ such that
            $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<0.001,$$
            but in stead you want $n$ such that $|s_n-e^{-1}|$ is strictly less than the part of $e^{-1}$ after the first three digits. Denoting the fractional part of a real number $x$ by ${x}$, this can be formally described as
            $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|,$$
            so it suffices to find $n$ such that
            $$frac{1}{n!}<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|.$$
            As your computations show $n=7$ does not suffice; you've found that
            $$s_7=0.3680555...qquadtext{ but }qquad 0.0000555...<frac{1}{7!}.$$ A little more work shows that $n=8$ does suffice; indeed
            $$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$






            share|cite|improve this answer














            To know the first three digits in the decimal expansion of $e^{-1}$ you don't want $n$ such that
            $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<0.001,$$
            but in stead you want $n$ such that $|s_n-e^{-1}|$ is strictly less than the part of $e^{-1}$ after the first three digits. Denoting the fractional part of a real number $x$ by ${x}$, this can be formally described as
            $$|s_n-e^{-1}|<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|,$$
            so it suffices to find $n$ such that
            $$frac{1}{n!}<left|s_n-frac{{10^3s_n}}{10^3}right|.$$
            As your computations show $n=7$ does not suffice; you've found that
            $$s_7=0.3680555...qquadtext{ but }qquad 0.0000555...<frac{1}{7!}.$$ A little more work shows that $n=8$ does suffice; indeed
            $$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Oct 23 at 23:04

























            answered Oct 23 at 22:54









            Servaes

            22.3k33793




            22.3k33793























                1















                Where am I missing something?




                Um... nowhere?



                $|s_7 - frac 1e| = |0.36805.... - 0.36787944| approx 0.00017056... < 0.001$



                And $|0.368 - frac 1e| = .00012055882855767840447622983853913..... < 0.001$



                So... why do you think you are missing something?






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
                  – Nikolaos Skout
                  Oct 23 at 23:40










                • " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 23 at 23:53












                • "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 24 at 0:00
















                1















                Where am I missing something?




                Um... nowhere?



                $|s_7 - frac 1e| = |0.36805.... - 0.36787944| approx 0.00017056... < 0.001$



                And $|0.368 - frac 1e| = .00012055882855767840447622983853913..... < 0.001$



                So... why do you think you are missing something?






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
                  – Nikolaos Skout
                  Oct 23 at 23:40










                • " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 23 at 23:53












                • "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 24 at 0:00














                1












                1








                1







                Where am I missing something?




                Um... nowhere?



                $|s_7 - frac 1e| = |0.36805.... - 0.36787944| approx 0.00017056... < 0.001$



                And $|0.368 - frac 1e| = .00012055882855767840447622983853913..... < 0.001$



                So... why do you think you are missing something?






                share|cite|improve this answer













                Where am I missing something?




                Um... nowhere?



                $|s_7 - frac 1e| = |0.36805.... - 0.36787944| approx 0.00017056... < 0.001$



                And $|0.368 - frac 1e| = .00012055882855767840447622983853913..... < 0.001$



                So... why do you think you are missing something?







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Oct 23 at 23:34









                fleablood

                68.1k22684




                68.1k22684












                • Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
                  – Nikolaos Skout
                  Oct 23 at 23:40










                • " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 23 at 23:53












                • "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 24 at 0:00


















                • Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
                  – Nikolaos Skout
                  Oct 23 at 23:40










                • " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 23 at 23:53












                • "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
                  – fleablood
                  Oct 24 at 0:00
















                Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
                – Nikolaos Skout
                Oct 23 at 23:40




                Because, in general, by setting $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$ i was expecting the k first decimal digits of $s_n$ and $alpha$ to be exactly the same. It seems that this is not the case. Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking $|s_n-alpha|<10^{-k}$?
                – Nikolaos Skout
                Oct 23 at 23:40












                " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
                – fleablood
                Oct 23 at 23:53






                " i was expecting the k first decimal digits of sn and α to be exactly the same." The first two are exactly the same. and the last one depends on if you have to round up or down. As the fourth decimal of 0.3678944.... is $8$ and $8 ge 5$ we round 0.36 7 8944... UP to 0.36 8. So you got EXACTLY the answer you would have expected.
                – fleablood
                Oct 23 at 23:53














                "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
                – fleablood
                Oct 24 at 0:00




                "Really, how many digits does someone expect to be exactly the same by taking |sn−α|<10−k?" You expect the first $k-1$ to be exactly the same and you expect the $k$ one to be exactly the same if you round down and to be one greater if you round up. Oh.. You might expect some of the first $k -1$ to be round from ...a999999 to ...(a+1)00000.
                – fleablood
                Oct 24 at 0:00











                0














                so we know:
                $$S=sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}=frac{1}{e}$$
                and we want to know this $frac1e$. To do this we simply evaluate terms of the sequence until it is consistant to 3 decimal decimal places.
                $$a_0=frac11=1$$
                $$a_0+a_1=1+frac{-1}1=0$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2=0+frac{1}{2}=frac{1}{2}=0.5$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3=frac{1}{2}+frac{-1}{6}=frac{1}{3}approx0.333$$
                $$a_0...+a_4=frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{24}=frac{3}{8}=0.375$$
                $$a_0...+a_5=frac{3}{8}+frac{-1}{120}approx0.367$$
                If you continue this in the way that you did then you do indeed end up with $0.368$ which is correct to 3 decimal places, so you have missed nothing






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 1




                  0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
                  – Ian
                  Oct 24 at 0:41










                • If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
                  – Henry Lee
                  Oct 24 at 0:44
















                0














                so we know:
                $$S=sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}=frac{1}{e}$$
                and we want to know this $frac1e$. To do this we simply evaluate terms of the sequence until it is consistant to 3 decimal decimal places.
                $$a_0=frac11=1$$
                $$a_0+a_1=1+frac{-1}1=0$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2=0+frac{1}{2}=frac{1}{2}=0.5$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3=frac{1}{2}+frac{-1}{6}=frac{1}{3}approx0.333$$
                $$a_0...+a_4=frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{24}=frac{3}{8}=0.375$$
                $$a_0...+a_5=frac{3}{8}+frac{-1}{120}approx0.367$$
                If you continue this in the way that you did then you do indeed end up with $0.368$ which is correct to 3 decimal places, so you have missed nothing






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 1




                  0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
                  – Ian
                  Oct 24 at 0:41










                • If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
                  – Henry Lee
                  Oct 24 at 0:44














                0












                0








                0






                so we know:
                $$S=sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}=frac{1}{e}$$
                and we want to know this $frac1e$. To do this we simply evaluate terms of the sequence until it is consistant to 3 decimal decimal places.
                $$a_0=frac11=1$$
                $$a_0+a_1=1+frac{-1}1=0$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2=0+frac{1}{2}=frac{1}{2}=0.5$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3=frac{1}{2}+frac{-1}{6}=frac{1}{3}approx0.333$$
                $$a_0...+a_4=frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{24}=frac{3}{8}=0.375$$
                $$a_0...+a_5=frac{3}{8}+frac{-1}{120}approx0.367$$
                If you continue this in the way that you did then you do indeed end up with $0.368$ which is correct to 3 decimal places, so you have missed nothing






                share|cite|improve this answer












                so we know:
                $$S=sum_{n=0}^inftyfrac{(-1)^n}{n!}=frac{1}{e}$$
                and we want to know this $frac1e$. To do this we simply evaluate terms of the sequence until it is consistant to 3 decimal decimal places.
                $$a_0=frac11=1$$
                $$a_0+a_1=1+frac{-1}1=0$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2=0+frac{1}{2}=frac{1}{2}=0.5$$
                $$a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3=frac{1}{2}+frac{-1}{6}=frac{1}{3}approx0.333$$
                $$a_0...+a_4=frac{1}{3}+frac{1}{24}=frac{3}{8}=0.375$$
                $$a_0...+a_5=frac{3}{8}+frac{-1}{120}approx0.367$$
                If you continue this in the way that you did then you do indeed end up with $0.368$ which is correct to 3 decimal places, so you have missed nothing







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Oct 24 at 0:39









                Henry Lee

                1,703218




                1,703218








                • 1




                  0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
                  – Ian
                  Oct 24 at 0:41










                • If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
                  – Henry Lee
                  Oct 24 at 0:44














                • 1




                  0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
                  – Ian
                  Oct 24 at 0:41










                • If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
                  – Henry Lee
                  Oct 24 at 0:44








                1




                1




                0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
                – Ian
                Oct 24 at 0:41




                0.368 is technically not correct to three places, its third digit is off by 1.
                – Ian
                Oct 24 at 0:41












                If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
                – Henry Lee
                Oct 24 at 0:44




                If we are rounding then it is correct, but if it is just the first three digits then $367$
                – Henry Lee
                Oct 24 at 0:44











                0














                Making the problem more general, you want to compute $p$ such that
                $$S_p=sum_{k=0}^{p}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$$ such that
                $$frac{1}{(p+1)!} le 10^{-n}$$ $n$ being the number of significant decimal places you need.



                If you look at this question of mine, you will see a magnificent approximation by @robjohn for the inverse of the factorial function.



                Applied to your case $(a=1)$, this would give
                $$color{blue}{p=frac{n log (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 Wleft(frac{n log
                (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 e}right)}-frac 32}$$
                where appears Lambert function that you can evaluate using the expansions given in the linked Wikipedia page.



                For $n=3$, this would give, as a real number, $p=5.17$. So, you need to use $p=6$. Let us check : $frac 1 {7!}=frac{1}{5040}approx 0.00020$ while $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  0














                  Making the problem more general, you want to compute $p$ such that
                  $$S_p=sum_{k=0}^{p}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$$ such that
                  $$frac{1}{(p+1)!} le 10^{-n}$$ $n$ being the number of significant decimal places you need.



                  If you look at this question of mine, you will see a magnificent approximation by @robjohn for the inverse of the factorial function.



                  Applied to your case $(a=1)$, this would give
                  $$color{blue}{p=frac{n log (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 Wleft(frac{n log
                  (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 e}right)}-frac 32}$$
                  where appears Lambert function that you can evaluate using the expansions given in the linked Wikipedia page.



                  For $n=3$, this would give, as a real number, $p=5.17$. So, you need to use $p=6$. Let us check : $frac 1 {7!}=frac{1}{5040}approx 0.00020$ while $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    0












                    0








                    0






                    Making the problem more general, you want to compute $p$ such that
                    $$S_p=sum_{k=0}^{p}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$$ such that
                    $$frac{1}{(p+1)!} le 10^{-n}$$ $n$ being the number of significant decimal places you need.



                    If you look at this question of mine, you will see a magnificent approximation by @robjohn for the inverse of the factorial function.



                    Applied to your case $(a=1)$, this would give
                    $$color{blue}{p=frac{n log (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 Wleft(frac{n log
                    (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 e}right)}-frac 32}$$
                    where appears Lambert function that you can evaluate using the expansions given in the linked Wikipedia page.



                    For $n=3$, this would give, as a real number, $p=5.17$. So, you need to use $p=6$. Let us check : $frac 1 {7!}=frac{1}{5040}approx 0.00020$ while $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    Making the problem more general, you want to compute $p$ such that
                    $$S_p=sum_{k=0}^{p}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}$$ such that
                    $$frac{1}{(p+1)!} le 10^{-n}$$ $n$ being the number of significant decimal places you need.



                    If you look at this question of mine, you will see a magnificent approximation by @robjohn for the inverse of the factorial function.



                    Applied to your case $(a=1)$, this would give
                    $$color{blue}{p=frac{n log (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 Wleft(frac{n log
                    (100)-log left({2 pi }right)}{2 e}right)}-frac 32}$$
                    where appears Lambert function that you can evaluate using the expansions given in the linked Wikipedia page.



                    For $n=3$, this would give, as a real number, $p=5.17$. So, you need to use $p=6$. Let us check : $frac 1 {7!}=frac{1}{5040}approx 0.00020$ while $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Oct 24 at 6:34









                    Claude Leibovici

                    119k1157132




                    119k1157132























                        0














                        Note
                        $$bigg|sum_{k=0}^{n}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=bigg|sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}bigg|lesum_{k=n+1}^inftyfrac{1}{3^{k}}lefrac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}.$$
                        Let $frac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}<0.001$ and then $n>frac{ln500}{ln 3}approx5.65678$. Now set $n=6$ and then
                        $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|<0.001. $$
                        In fact, it is easy to see
                        $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{5}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.001212774505,bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.0001761143841<0.001. $$
                        So $n=6$ is the small number such that $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          0














                          Note
                          $$bigg|sum_{k=0}^{n}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=bigg|sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}bigg|lesum_{k=n+1}^inftyfrac{1}{3^{k}}lefrac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}.$$
                          Let $frac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}<0.001$ and then $n>frac{ln500}{ln 3}approx5.65678$. Now set $n=6$ and then
                          $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|<0.001. $$
                          In fact, it is easy to see
                          $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{5}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.001212774505,bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.0001761143841<0.001. $$
                          So $n=6$ is the small number such that $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            0












                            0








                            0






                            Note
                            $$bigg|sum_{k=0}^{n}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=bigg|sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}bigg|lesum_{k=n+1}^inftyfrac{1}{3^{k}}lefrac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}.$$
                            Let $frac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}<0.001$ and then $n>frac{ln500}{ln 3}approx5.65678$. Now set $n=6$ and then
                            $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|<0.001. $$
                            In fact, it is easy to see
                            $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{5}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.001212774505,bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.0001761143841<0.001. $$
                            So $n=6$ is the small number such that $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            Note
                            $$bigg|sum_{k=0}^{n}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=bigg|sum_{k=n+1}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}bigg|lesum_{k=n+1}^inftyfrac{1}{3^{k}}lefrac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}.$$
                            Let $frac{1}{2cdot3^{n}}<0.001$ and then $n>frac{ln500}{ln 3}approx5.65678$. Now set $n=6$ and then
                            $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|<0.001. $$
                            In fact, it is easy to see
                            $$ bigg|sum_{k=0}^{5}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.001212774505,bigg|sum_{k=0}^{6}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}-frac{1}{e}bigg|=0.0001761143841<0.001. $$
                            So $n=6$ is the small number such that $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Oct 24 at 15:20









                            xpaul

                            22.4k14455




                            22.4k14455






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2968360%2fusing-sum-k-0-infty-frac-1kk-frac1e-evaluate-first-3-decim%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Bundesstraße 106

                                Verónica Boquete

                                Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten