Approximating irrational number to rational number$lim_{ntoinfty} f(2^n)$ for some very slowly increasing...
What if a revenant (monster) gains fire resistance?
Why electric field inside a cavity of a non-conducting sphere not zero?
Should I outline or discovery write my stories?
Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?
Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?
Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?
Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?
Delivering sarcasm
A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?
What should you do if you miss a job interview (deliberately)?
How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?
Non-trope happy ending?
Freedom of speech and where it applies
How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?
Why did the HMS Bounty go back to a time when whales are already rare?
Store Credit Card Information in Password Manager?
Drawing ramified coverings with tikz
Start making guitar arrangements
Melting point of aspirin, contradicting sources
Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?
It grows, but water kills it
Closed-form expression for certain product
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 $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
56 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
54 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
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
43 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 54 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 $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
56 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
54 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
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
43 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
56 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
54 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
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
56 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
54 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
54 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
54 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
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
43 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
$$
{0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
$$
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 $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$
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, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. 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 $frac{891}{1619}$ 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 $frac{11}{20}$ 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 number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. 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 $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. 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 49 mins ago
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
300k24200374
300k24200374
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
$begingroup$
(+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
$$
{0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
$$
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 $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
$$
{0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
$$
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 $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
$$
{0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
$$
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 $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.
$endgroup$
The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
$$
{0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
$$
The convergents for this continued fraction are
$$
left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
$$
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 $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.
answered 34 mins ago
robjohn♦robjohn
269k27311638
269k27311638
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
22 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$
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, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. 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 $frac{891}{1619}$ 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 $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$
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, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. 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 $frac{891}{1619}$ 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 $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$
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, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. 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 $frac{891}{1619}$ 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 $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.
$endgroup$
Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:
$$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$
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, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.
The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. 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 $frac{891}{1619}$ 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 $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.
answered 23 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 $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
56 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
54 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
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
43 mins ago