Using $ sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}=frac1e$ evaluate first $3$ decimal digits of $1/e$.
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
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
calculus sequences-and-series exponential-function
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
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
$$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$
add a comment |
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?
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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 $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.
add a comment |
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 $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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
$$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$
add a comment |
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
$$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$
add a comment |
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
$$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$
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
$$s_8=0.3678571...qquadtext{ and }qquad 0.0001428...>frac{1}{8!}.$$
edited Oct 23 at 23:04
answered Oct 23 at 22:54
Servaes
22.3k33793
22.3k33793
add a comment |
add a comment |
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?
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
add a comment |
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?
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
add a comment |
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?
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?
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.
add a comment |
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 $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.
add a comment |
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 $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.
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 $frac 1 {6!}=frac{1}{720}approx 0.00139$.
answered Oct 24 at 6:34
Claude Leibovici
119k1157132
119k1157132
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.
add a comment |
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 $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.
add a comment |
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 $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.
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 $|s_n-frac1e|<0.001$.
answered Oct 24 at 15:20
xpaul
22.4k14455
22.4k14455
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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