Approximating irrational number to rational number$lim_ntoinfty f(2^n)$ for some very slowly increasing function $f(n)$Hermite Interpolation of $e^x$. Strange behaviour when increasing the number of derivatives at interpolating points.Newton's Method, and approximating parameters for Bézier curves.Approximating Logs and Antilogs by handApproximating fractionsExistence of Irrational Number that has same $n$ digits of a given Rational Number.Finding Irrational Approximation for a given Rational Number.Atomic weights: rational or irrational?Does there exist infinitely many $mu$ which satisfy this:Approximating functions with rational functions
A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?
Why electric field inside a cavity of a non-conducting sphere not zero?
Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?
How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?
Travelling outside the UK without a passport
What should you do if you miss a job interview (deliberately)?
Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank
GraphicsGrid with a Label for each Column and Row
Should I outline or discovery write my stories?
Start making guitar arrangements
WiFi Thermostat, No C Terminal on Furnace
What does chmod -u do?
How to bake one texture for one mesh with multiple textures blender 2.8
Is it safe to use olive oil to clean the ear wax?
C++ debug/print custom type with GDB : the case of nlohmann json library
Is it better practice to read straight from sheet music rather than memorize it?
Problem with TransformedDistribution
why `nmap 192.168.1.97` returns less services than `nmap 127.0.0.1`?
Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?
Is there a working SACD iso player for Ubuntu?
Why should universal income be universal?
Create all possible words using a set or letters
Why does the Sun have different day lengths, but not the gas giants?
Approximating irrational number to rational number
Approximating irrational number to rational number
$lim_ntoinfty f(2^n)$ for some very slowly increasing function $f(n)$Hermite Interpolation of $e^x$. Strange behaviour when increasing the number of derivatives at interpolating points.Newton's Method, and approximating parameters for Bézier curves.Approximating Logs and Antilogs by handApproximating fractionsExistence of Irrational Number that has same $n$ digits of a given Rational Number.Finding Irrational Approximation for a given Rational Number.Atomic weights: rational or irrational?Does there exist infinitely many $mu$ which satisfy this:Approximating functions with rational functions
$begingroup$
I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac log(5/4)log(3/2)$ to a rational number $p/q$.
I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.
In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.
What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.
Can you provide me way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?
Thank you in advance.
approximation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac log(5/4)log(3/2)$ to a rational number $p/q$.
I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.
In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.
What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.
Can you provide me way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?
Thank you in advance.
approximation
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac55034100000$ or $tfrac550310000$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
46 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
44 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
33 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac log(5/4)log(3/2)$ to a rational number $p/q$.
I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.
In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.
What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.
Can you provide me way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?
Thank you in advance.
approximation
$endgroup$
I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac log(5/4)log(3/2)$ to a rational number $p/q$.
I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.
In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.
What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.
Can you provide me way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?
Thank you in advance.
approximation
approximation
edited 44 mins ago
Rócherz
2,9863821
2,9863821
asked 1 hour ago
MrTanorusMrTanorus
1928
1928
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac55034100000$ or $tfrac550310000$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
46 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
44 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
33 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac55034100000$ or $tfrac550310000$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
46 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
44 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac55034100000$ or $tfrac550310000$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac55034100000$ or $tfrac550310000$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
46 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
44 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
33 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$ is
$$
0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color#C0010,143,3,dots
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left0,1,frac12,frac59,frac1120,frac71129,frac82149,color#C00frac8911619,frac127495231666,frac383376696617,dotsright
$$
As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac8911619$ is closer than $frac1143cdot1619^2$ to $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac 8911619approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$beginarrayccx&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^-6 & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^-6 & 3 & -127495 & 231666endarray$$
The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)right|$ is approximated by $fraca_n$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac x_n-1x_nrightrfloor$, $x_n+1=x_n-1-q_nx_n$, $a_n+1=a_n-1-q_na_n$, $b_n+1=b_n-1-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_-1$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_-1=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_-1=1$.
If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.
Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac8911619$ approximation.
It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac1120$ approximation.
$endgroup$
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%2f3160023%2fapproximating-irrational-number-to-rational-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$ is
$$
0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color#C0010,143,3,dots
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left0,1,frac12,frac59,frac1120,frac71129,frac82149,color#C00frac8911619,frac127495231666,frac383376696617,dotsright
$$
As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac8911619$ is closer than $frac1143cdot1619^2$ to $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$ is
$$
0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color#C0010,143,3,dots
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left0,1,frac12,frac59,frac1120,frac71129,frac82149,color#C00frac8911619,frac127495231666,frac383376696617,dotsright
$$
As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac8911619$ is closer than $frac1143cdot1619^2$ to $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$ is
$$
0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color#C0010,143,3,dots
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left0,1,frac12,frac59,frac1120,frac71129,frac82149,color#C00frac8911619,frac127495231666,frac383376696617,dotsright
$$
As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac8911619$ is closer than $frac1143cdot1619^2$ to $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$.
$endgroup$
The continued fraction for $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$ is
$$
0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color#C0010,143,3,dots
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left0,1,frac12,frac59,frac1120,frac71129,frac82149,color#C00frac8911619,frac127495231666,frac383376696617,dotsright
$$
As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac8911619$ is closer than $frac1143cdot1619^2$ to $fraclogleft(frac54right)logleft(frac32right)$.
answered 23 mins ago
robjohn♦robjohn
269k27311638
269k27311638
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac 8911619approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac 8911619approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac 8911619approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac 8911619approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
answered 38 mins ago
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
300k24200374
300k24200374
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$beginarrayccx&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^-6 & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^-6 & 3 & -127495 & 231666endarray$$
The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)right|$ is approximated by $fraca_n$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac x_n-1x_nrightrfloor$, $x_n+1=x_n-1-q_nx_n$, $a_n+1=a_n-1-q_na_n$, $b_n+1=b_n-1-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_-1$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_-1=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_-1=1$.
If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.
Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac8911619$ approximation.
It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac1120$ approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$beginarrayccx&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^-6 & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^-6 & 3 & -127495 & 231666endarray$$
The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)right|$ is approximated by $fraca_n$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac x_n-1x_nrightrfloor$, $x_n+1=x_n-1-q_nx_n$, $a_n+1=a_n-1-q_na_n$, $b_n+1=b_n-1-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_-1$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_-1=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_-1=1$.
If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.
Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac8911619$ approximation.
It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac1120$ approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$beginarrayccx&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^-6 & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^-6 & 3 & -127495 & 231666endarray$$
The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)right|$ is approximated by $fraca_n$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac x_n-1x_nrightrfloor$, $x_n+1=x_n-1-q_nx_n$, $a_n+1=a_n-1-q_na_n$, $b_n+1=b_n-1-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_-1$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_-1=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_-1=1$.
If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.
Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac8911619$ approximation.
It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac1120$ approximation.
$endgroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$beginarrayccx&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^-6 & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^-6 & 3 & -127495 & 231666endarray$$
The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|fraclog(5/4)log(3/2)right|$ is approximated by $fraca_n$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac x_n-1x_nrightrfloor$, $x_n+1=x_n-1-q_nx_n$, $a_n+1=a_n-1-q_na_n$, $b_n+1=b_n-1-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_-1$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_-1=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_-1=1$.
If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.
Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac8911619$ approximation.
It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac1120$ approximation.
answered 13 mins ago
jmerryjmerry
15.8k1632
15.8k1632
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.
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%2f3160023%2fapproximating-irrational-number-to-rational-number%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
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac55034100000$ or $tfrac550310000$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
46 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
44 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
33 mins ago