Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: e^(e^(e^e)) =N ?
Replies: 61   Last Post: Feb 23, 2009 8:40 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk Posts: 2,136 Registered: 1/25/05
Re: e^(e^(e^e)) =N ?
Posted: Jan 25, 2009 1:36 PM

On Jan 25, 3:59 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Or maybe that's more-or-less what you were saying in your last
> > paragraph. Maybe all we're disagreeing about is whether or not
> > "math" (in the sense of sci.math) can encompass computational results.
> > I think yes; possibly you think no.

>
> It can - by using symbols instead of real values, as I said. Other
> words instead of using exact finite surrogate values and real
> calculations - by using AI-based algorithms for string manipulations.
>
> Other words for the conventional discrete math
>  e + pi - e = 3.1415926535897927(0)
>  so results into some finite rational number
>  (with possible discrepancy in last significant digits by OS and OS
> versions)
> and
>  e + pi - e == pi is false
> It is absolutely irrelevant if we have 8, 16, 16 millions or googol
> significant digits after comma. We simply cannot accomplish the first
> necessary step in the algorithm: "let's take e..." within the frame of
> the discrete math and any real calculations.
>
> Instead all abstract math emulators like Mathematica are using symbols
> and string manipulations so
>  e + pi - e
> comes to
>  strSymWrdE + strSymWrdPi - strSymWrdE = strSymWrdPi
> just like string "A" with strings "B" and "C" added will be "ABC"; and
> "ABC" being left and right trimmed results in string "B"
> - of course it is simplified to a profanity sample, the real mechanics
> is much more complicated than that.

Yes, I understand all this. By "computational results" I didn't mean
symbolic manipulation on a computer, I meant numerical results
calculated on a computer -- specifically, in this case, demonstrating
that e^(e^(e^e)) is not an integer by calculating its value
numerically to sufficient digits. To me, that is on-topic at sci.math.
(From a "pure math" perspective we would of course rather do it
symbolically, so the OP's question has an indisputable relevance here
in any case.)

Date Subject Author
1/24/09 lundslaktare@yahoo.com
1/24/09 David R Tribble
1/24/09 quasi
1/24/09 YBM
1/24/09 quasi
1/24/09 YBM
1/24/09 quasi
1/25/09 Tim Smith
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/24/09 Walter
1/24/09 quasi
1/24/09 Walter
1/24/09 quasi
1/24/09 lundslaktare@yahoo.com
1/25/09 Walter
1/25/09 Phil Carmody
1/25/09 Phil Carmody
1/25/09 Denis Feldmann
1/24/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 Robert Israel
1/25/09 VK
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 Raymond Manzoni
1/25/09 Raymond Manzoni
1/25/09 Phil Carmody
1/25/09 Stephen J. Herschkorn
1/25/09 Phil Carmody
1/25/09 Raymond Manzoni
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 Stephen J. Herschkorn
1/25/09 quasi
2/23/09 Tim Little
2/23/09 Tim Little
2/23/09 quasi
1/26/09 lwalke3@lausd.net
2/23/09 hagman
2/23/09 quasi
1/26/09 Dave L. Renfro
1/25/09 Phil Carmody
1/25/09 Raymond Manzoni
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 VK
1/25/09 Tim Smith
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 quasi
1/25/09 VK
1/25/09 matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
1/25/09 David R Tribble
1/25/09 Joshua Cranmer
1/25/09 David R Tribble
1/25/09 lundslaktare@yahoo.com
1/26/09 David Bernier
1/26/09 Robert Israel
1/26/09 David Bernier