Zelaron Gaming Forum  
Register Stats Arcade Portal Forum FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Zelaron Gaming Forum > The Zelaron Nexus > Science and Art

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

 
Maclaurin series similar to those of e^x
Reply
Posted 2018-11-25, 04:51 PM
I was playing around with functions of the form (based on the trivial Maclaurin expansion of ), and noticed, for example, that












where is the golden ratio. If you're sufficiently bored, you should help me find other, interesting functions , or similar series expansions, e.g. by using WolframAlpha. I suspect that the series above have been studied in some more general context since they're so "obvious", but I haven't seen anything along those lines previously.

(Edit: I should note that if you throw away any terms such that .)
"Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica and is widely regarded as the most important innovator in scientific and technical computing today." - Stephen Wolfram

Last edited by Chruser; 2018-11-25 at 05:21 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Chruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed it
 
Chruser
 



 
Reply
Posted 2018-12-02, 10:20 AM in reply to Chruser's post "Maclaurin series similar to those of e^x"
I fucking suck at math, but I love it. I genuinely wish I had the time to understand it as profoundly as you.

Edit: I'm very curious about math and fuck with numbers in my free time but its not nearly as complex as what you post. A year or so ago I found something cool, I can't remember exactly how/what I was doing but the result would look like something similar: 0.845749350254069765210543.... (infinitely)

So at first glance it just looks like a huge fucking decimal but if you count the numbers between the zeros, they are the same as the number that immediately proceeds the zero (including the first 0 before the decimal point)

0.845749350

I wish I could remember what I was doing, I have it in a notebook somewhere but since I've moved who knows where that's at

Last edited by -Spector-; 2018-12-02 at 10:35 AM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
-Spector- is the result of 14 billion years of hydrogen atom evolution-Spector- is the result of 14 billion years of hydrogen atom evolution-Spector- is the result of 14 billion years of hydrogen atom evolution-Spector- is the result of 14 billion years of hydrogen atom evolution-Spector- is the result of 14 billion years of hydrogen atom evolution-Spector- is the result of 14 billion years of hydrogen atom evolution
 
 
-Spector-
 



 
Reply
Posted 2018-12-03, 10:25 PM in reply to Chruser's post "Maclaurin series similar to those of e^x"
Chruser said: [Goto]
I was playing around with functions of the form (based on the trivial Maclaurin expansion of ), and noticed, for example, that












where is the golden ratio. If you're sufficiently bored, you should help me find other, interesting functions , or similar series expansions, e.g. by using WolframAlpha. I suspect that the series above have been studied in some more general context since they're so "obvious", but I haven't seen anything along those lines previously.

(Edit: I should note that if you throw away any terms such that .)
Minor quibble, but shouldn't have a g(n) factor in each term? I haven't looked at this with pen and paper, so I might be missing some simplification, but that derivative formula looks wrong at first glance in the general case.

I'm also not sure I understand what you're looking for. Sin, sinh, etc are all essentially special functions, and you could always define special functions based on whatever series you come up with by replacing n with 2n or what have you. So are you essentially looking for series where such replacements produce things in terms of known special functions? Or am I misunderstanding?

Last edited by Demosthenes; 2018-12-03 at 10:49 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2018-12-03, 10:44 PM in reply to -Spector-'s post starting "I fucking suck at math, but I love it...."
-Spector- said: [Goto]
I fucking suck at math, but I love it. I genuinely wish I had the time to understand it as profoundly as you.

Edit: I'm very curious about math and fuck with numbers in my free time but its not nearly as complex as what you post. A year or so ago I found something cool, I can't remember exactly how/what I was doing but the result would look like something similar: 0.845749350254069765210543.... (infinitely)

So at first glance it just looks like a huge fucking decimal but if you count the numbers between the zeros, they are the same as the number that immediately proceeds the zero (including the first 0 before the decimal point)

0.845749350

I wish I could remember what I was doing, I have it in a notebook somewhere but since I've moved who knows where that's at
What you're talking about is basically a repeating decimal. For instance

Another interesting example of a repeated fraction is . It has the additionaly property of it being cyclic. So 2/7 is the same as 1/7 except you move the 14 to the end and start with 2:











As you can see, not only are they all repeating decimals, but they are all cyclic permutations of the original 1/7 string.

This kind of thing is related to cyclic numbers. These are numbers where successive multiples of that number are also cyclic permutations of that number. The smallest such number in decimal is the same string of numbers as 1/7: 142,857, since 142,857 * 2 = 285,714, etc (same as what is shown above).

Cyclic numbers are always of the form



where b is the base you're working in (10 in our case) and p is a prime that does not divide b. Not all primes satisfying this formula will produce a cyclic number, but all cyclic number will satisfy this formula. According to wikipedia, the following are the first to primes produce cyclic numbers:

7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97, 109, 113, 131, 149, 167, 179, 181, 193, 223, 229, 233, 257, 263, 269, 313, 337, 367, 379, 383, 389, 419, 433, 461, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 541, 571, 577, 593, 619, 647, 659, 701, 709, 727, 743, 811, 821, 823, 857, 863, 887, 937, 941, 953, 971, 977, 983

142,857 have b = 10 and p = 7.

The next lowest cyclic number has b = 10 and p = 17: 0,588,235,294,117,647

You have to allow for leading zeros, otherwise 142857 is the only number that is cyclic.

I found those to be a cool math facts, so I thought I would share.

Last edited by Demosthenes; 2018-12-04 at 02:36 AM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2018-12-04, 02:31 AM in reply to Chruser's post "Maclaurin series similar to those of e^x"
has some interesting ones.







For where k is odd an arctan term shows up, sometimes added to a polynomial and/or logarithmic terms. For even k I see only polynomial and logarithmic terms. k = 7 has a much neater form than the others that I've looked at





There may be some other stuff that exists.

Curious that the "base" series is that for the natural log, but an arctan shows up when modifying that series. I remember seeing another relation between ln and arctan as well:

(for x>0...switch the sign on the pi/2 for negative x.)

Last edited by Demosthenes; 2018-12-04 at 02:35 AM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2018-12-06, 02:44 AM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "f_{g(n)}(x) = -\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}..."
-Spector- said: [Goto]
I fucking suck at math, but I love it. I genuinely wish I had the time to understand it as profoundly as you.

Edit: I'm very curious about math and fuck with numbers in my free time but its not nearly as complex as what you post. A year or so ago I found something cool, I can't remember exactly how/what I was doing but the result would look like something similar: 0.845749350254069765210543.... (infinitely)

Well, to quote some guy who broke the "known for" list in the sidebar of Wikipedia by making it too long, "young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."

As for that number you referred to, MJ already mentioned that it's a repeating decimal, but I might as well write the (elementary) way to convert them into a fraction, since the educational system seems to miss stuff like that sometimes. Let's say that



Here, the repeating part is obviously the string 075. We multiply both sides of the equation above by powers of 10 so we first get the repeating part directly after the ., and then so that we also get one period on the left side of the . as follows:





Now note that , or equivalently, , and thus,




Demosthenes said: [Goto]
Minor quibble, but shouldn't have a g(n) factor in each term? I haven't looked at this with pen and paper, so I might be missing some simplification, but that derivative formula looks wrong at first glance in the general case.

Well,



so I think it's fine, and I think it generalizes to replacement of the factorial with the gamma function as well, although I haven't considered the technical details of that carefully.


Demosthenes said: [Goto]
So are you essentially looking for series where such replacements produce things in terms of known special functions? Or am I misunderstanding?

Yes, the more elegant the better, in some sense, but you seem to be on the same track in your latest post, so this was probably a superfluous justification. I was inspired by showing up in the closed form of (which isn't really a huge surprise since ), and by the curious average of the cosine and hyperbolic cosine functions in Also, the series converges in many cases (e.g. when belongs to a large class of nonconstant and nonlinear polynomials), so I thought it might be interesting to try to find closed forms for some of those cases, since the series hasn't previously been studied in any generality, AFAIK.


Demosthenes said: [Goto]
has some interesting ones.

I like that function! The series can be explained with the well-known closed forms of the series and that you already mentioned (it should be the hyperbolic arctangent, not the regular one), in addition to a shift of the index of summation to deal with the term.

Explicitly, for (i.e. when is even),



Similarly, for (i.e. when is odd),



Note that the larger the value of (and thus, of ), the better the last sums approximate and , respectively. I haven't investigated it yet, but intuition tells me that and are thus "basis vectors" (in lack of a better term) for the "space" spanned by . Perhaps you get some similar "space" with three basis vectors for (which hints at the basis vectors being particularly well-behaved), but again, I haven't explored the idea yet.

To go off on another tangent, if we compare your series to the relation from my original series, it's implied that the "derivative" of is . Obviously this isn't the standard derivative, but and are both pretty similar expressions, so I'm thinking there's some type of differential operator (perhaps it could conveniently be called an "exponential derivative") such that for your series, which might have some very interesting properties.

For the example above, seems to be the operation "differentiate, divide by x, integrate" (with some minor technical tweaks), but it's probably more complicated than that in general...
"Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica and is widely regarded as the most important innovator in scientific and technical computing today." - Stephen Wolfram

Last edited by Chruser; 2018-12-06 at 09:32 AM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Chruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed it
 
Chruser
 



 
Reply
Posted 2018-12-06, 10:49 AM in reply to Chruser's post starting "Well, to quote some..."
Chruser said: [Goto]
For the example above, seems to be the operation "differentiate, divide by x, integrate" (with some minor technical tweaks), but it's probably more complicated than that in general...

Actually, this seems to be it (modulo some minor technical stuff). My previous post was getting a bit lengthy, so I'll post some calculations in here instead.

We have that



so



Consequently, by integrating both sides of the equation above and dropping the constant of integration, and by assuming that the order of integration and summation is interchangeable, we see that



In other words, a differential operator (in the fractional calculus sense, where integration is considered differentiation of order -1) such that is



I can't say that I've seen it previously, but I like its symmetry...
"Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica and is widely regarded as the most important innovator in scientific and technical computing today." - Stephen Wolfram

Last edited by Chruser; 2018-12-10 at 12:32 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Chruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed itChruser shouldn't have fed it
 
Chruser
 
 

Bookmarks

Tags
calculus, expansion, maclaurin series, math, power series, series, taylor series

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules [Forum Rules]
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TV Series Recommendations? Lenny General Discussion 17 2011-05-31 01:50 AM
Batman series on Cartoon Network Wed-G Science and Art 3 2009-03-20 03:50 PM
Series tacoX Science and Art 0 2002-02-16 12:14 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31 AM.
'Synthesis 2' vBulletin 3.x styles and 'x79' derivative
by WetWired the Unbound and Chruser
Copyright ©2002-2008 zelaron.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.