Hans: Thanks for pointing me to Foias's constant. The literature around that explains it nicely. Dan: Thanks for posting an interesting and surprising problem. Christopher: I may have reverse-engineered your 1.84 value. Roundoff error couldn't get the calculation so far astray. Playing around with it, I can replicate your result if you coded an off-by-one error in your exponent, like: f(n+1) = (1 + 1/f(n))^(n+1) All: This is a nice example where listing decimal digits in the OEIS is useful. I didn't think to look there as I generally dislike series that are dependent on a base 10 representation, but I have to admit there is a pragmatic value to it in this sort of case. So maybe I should rethink my prejudice... George http://georgehart.com On 9/4/2020 1:53 PM, christopher landauer wrote:
hihi, all -
it is likely about what i wrote at the end - precision loss made my program bogus (but it was still interesting) -
it seemed possible that a sufficiently slowly increasing function could get large, because then 1 + 1/f(n)
is farther away from 1, so the power might be large again, but i didn't try that
more later,
chris
On 2020-09-04 10:29, Dan Asimov wrote:
Nice analysis, George!
Yup, Hans named it — the Foias constant.
Apparently it was discovered because of a misprint in a copy of a question that originally asked whether the (much simpler) recurrence x_(n+1) = (1 + 1/x_n)^x_n (where x_1 > 0) could possibly approach oo.
—Dan
Hans Havermann wrote: ----- GH: "f(1) = 1.1874523511"
Looks like Foias' constant.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FoiasConstant.html -----
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun