Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
@Stuxnet
yes, but I love it.
I'm the Picasso of math. Fucking terrible at it. I want to be the *van gogh* of math.
Maybe if I cut off my ear and mail it to my love interest...
Edit: Is my math bad here or do you mean math in general? -
Apparently it becomes more accurate the larger the number.
It is accurate only for the unit digit, up to n=299.
At n = 446, it becomes accurate to two digits.
At n = 6975 it is three digits accurate and so on.
If anyone can find counter examples in these ranges where it is *less* accurate than the rest of the range, that would be cool. -
hitko31455yIt's way off for values below 1 (including negative numbers), other than that it's pretty close. But really, exponential function takes exactly as long to compute as its inverse, the logarithmic function - that given, it's faster to just use ln(n).
-
@hitko
I'm so untrained at math I wasn't aware expotentials were the inverse of logarithms lol.
I just hate the idea of relying on a magic button. -
kraator4115ySimply plot the difference of your funktion and ln x:
On a linear scale (adjust x range at the end) :
https://wolframalpha.com/input/...
Using a logarithmic x axis :
https://wolframalpha.com/input/... -
@kraator
You are a god.
I will now proceed to trade you gold in exchange for glass beads and wolfram alpha plots. -
-
@kraator
Hey Kraator, it's probably a lot to ask, and I know I troll and shitpost a bit, in addition to being genuinely ignorant of a lot of things (even I can only tolerate so much self-embarrassment), but would you be willing to explain the difference for me about your two plots and what they mean?
Related Rants
Oh god, here comes another math post! I can feel it coming on, like werewolfism during the full moon.
I'm only passingly familiar with logarithms, so this, like everything I've stumbled on, has probably already been discovered, but
n/(1/((n^(1/n))-1))
Is a pretty good approximation (within a couple percentage points, or three or more digits) of the natural logarithm for all the numbers I've checked it on.
For example if
n = 690841693
ln(n) = 20.35342125707679
while our estimate using the above formula comes out to:
n/(1/((n**(1/n))-1)) = 20.353421612948146
Am I missing something obvious here, and if so, what?
Am I doing the idiot savant thing again, or am I just being an idiot again?
random
logarithms
algorithms
math