Re: Series and number of terms
From: S. Enterprize Company (smart1234_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Previous message: John0714: "Re: The mathematics of outrage"
- In reply to: Dave Seaman: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Next in thread: Peter Webb: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Reply: Peter Webb: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Reply: Hibernatus: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Oct 2004 11:02:54 GMT
>On 22 Oct 2004 15:46:02 -0700, D wrote:
>> A fellow posed this question to me a few days ago. So far, none of my
>> professors or colleagues could answer this:
>
>> SUM(1/n^2) as n=1 to infinity.
>
>> How many terms are needed to come to a solution with an error < 0.001.
>
>> My initial thought was to integrate the p-series from 1 to k of the
>> function subtracted from the integral of the function from (k+1) to
>> infinity. Therefore, subtracting the errors should yield the term. I
>> was wrong, or did the calculations incorrectly.
>
>> I'm dying of curiousity on this one. Thanks in advance
>
>> Daniel Lausevic
>
>Mathematica says the first 1000 terms are close enough.
>
>In[1]:= NSum[1/n^2,{n,1001,Infinity}]
>
>Out[1]= 0.0009995
>
>
>
>--
>Dave Seaman
>Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
><http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
>
>
>
A simple way I view it....
Accuracy looks like common sense to me. You can only be as accurate as the
number of accurate values used.
If you want an accuracy of < .001, use 1000 accurate values. The inverse of
.001 = 1000
If you want an accuracy of <.0000000000001 then use 1/ (1 X10^13) 10^13
accurate terms.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
- Next message: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999999999999 = 1 No it doesn'ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.........."
- Previous message: John0714: "Re: The mathematics of outrage"
- In reply to: Dave Seaman: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Next in thread: Peter Webb: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Reply: Peter Webb: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Reply: Hibernatus: "Re: Series and number of terms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|